← Back to context

Comment by Robotbeat

21 hours ago

That’s a really difficult problem to solve with the built environment being the way it is. Buses get the closest, but to make it usable at times other than rush hour, they have to run empty or nearly empty, which drives the cost very high (although this is often hidden by subsidies). The way to deal with low density transit is automation.

Depends at the scale you're looking at. How much money is wasted by 30 people driving 30 cars when a bus could take them all? Taking into account car wear, gas, etc.

Low density public transport work very well in places where people simply can't afford personal vehicles, it's not a tech logical or financial problem at all, if anything it's cultural and mostly political

If the bus service is good and available, people will use it eventually including in off hours. Induced demand.

I can not imagine that the cost of busses can ever approach the cost of the equivalent amount of cars (for the same amount of passengers).

  • It is, at least in a place like LA. Fares are like less than 10% the actual total cost of an average bus ride. https://www.reddit.com/r/LAMetro/comments/1orftnt/should_you...

    Now if you’re ONLY serving high density and high passenger volume times, buses are incredible.

    • Is your point that busses aren't profitable? Why do they need to be?

      I am sure if you did the math, having the occasional empty bus does not hold a candle to the amount of dead mass being dragged along in single-occupant cars.

      The wear-and-tear on the road from the sheer volume of cars alone makes them cost more to us as a society than busses.

      So regardless of density and passenger volume, busses are incredible.

      4 replies →