upvote
I understand that you're being glib about buses or trains, but the driver is a large part of the operating costs of a bus, and additionally driverless buses might make more frequent but smaller buses more economical.
reply
There are driverless light rails already, and there are cities that have built dedicated streets for buses which would be the first place I’d try actual driverless vehicles.
reply
The reductive "you just invented $existing_thing" framing is so tiresome.

There are so very many opportunities for a better surface transport system than buses. Dynamic routing and scheduling, capacity somewhere between a city bus and a taxi, and potentially better economies of scale all make this far more appealing than what exists today.

Also – and I know acknowledging this will not go over well in some circles – requiring an app and a credit card will go a long way toward keeping riders of a certain disposition off the vehicles. No, it's not a perfect proxy for who will and won't make riding unpleasant or unsafe, but riders will intuitively understand it even if they don't want to think about it, and it will make a difference.

reply
> There are so very many opportunities for a better surface transport system than buses. Dynamic routing and scheduling, capacity somewhere between a city bus and a taxi, and potentially better economies of scale all make this far more appealing than what exists today.

Anyone who knows something about transit already knows this is false. the idea has been tried and failed for hundreds of years. What people want is predictable transit that is there when they want to go and gets people places in a reasonable amount of time. Nobody cares about other stops.

People hate dynamic routing because it means they never arrive at the same time and in turn they can't use transit at all unless they plan to arrive way too early. Most trips are time sensitive, that isn't just the trip time, but also they have to be someplace at a specific time.

People hate dynamic scheduling because it means they can't take spontaneous trips. They can't be late for their planned trip. They will miss the bus once in a while because something didn't go to plan.

What people want is predictable routes that run so often they don't need to look at a schedule. They can figure out how to navigate it. Places people want to be will figure out those routes and location where it is easy to get to.

Okay, what people really want is Star Trek style teleportation. The point is to be someplace fast, not the journey. This is impossible though, so we compromise. the best compromise for transit is frequent systems that run predictable routes.

reply
The Uber Pool, now UberX Share thing was quite good.
reply
An automated van that has roughly regular routes but goes slightly out of its way to pick up/drop off people would be a good middle ground between taxis and buses —- not unlike Jeepnys in the Philippines.
reply
No, it is a terrible middle ground. They work only for people who are okay with being late to a meeting once in a while, or people who are okay with arriving far too early and then waiting once they get there. People who value their time want something predictable so they can arrange their time around things they understand.
reply
You might be onto something. Don't stop that train of thought. Keep going.
reply
We can called it a "Beneficial Usage Service" or BUS, for short.
reply
This meme about self-driving cabs being glorified busses reminds me of the infamous Dropbox comment. It’s technically correct. But it misses the social context so entirely that it, when you realise it’s being seriously said, becomes farce.
reply
The way these are pushed as "solutions to cities and traffic" make making fun of the too easy.

> But it misses the social context

Funny how their entire social context is "never encounter another human as you go from A to B"

reply
> way these are pushed as "solutions to cities and traffic" make making fun of the too easy

It's funny. It's also dumb. An observation can be both at the same time--it's a cornerstone of humor. What it isn't is fundamentally true or revealing.

> their entire social context is "never encounter another human as you go from A to B"

Nope. It's recognising that humans have diverse and varying needs for interaction and privacy.

I like to dine out, even alone. That doesn't make everyone who eats at home alone an idiot. (That doesn't mean I can't make jokes about it. But they shouldn't be mistaken for truth.)

reply
> What it isn't is fundamentally true or revealing.

Well, they are not a solution to transport problems, or to traffic jams.

Yes, they can be complementary to other types of transportation. Yes, companies will enshittify them beyond measure if/when they reach a certain proportion of cars.

> It's recognising that humans have diverse and varying needs for interaction and privacy.

No. I don't think this was even uttered by any of these companies.

Waymo claims to be committed to safety: https://waymo.com/about/

Tesla: stress and safety https://www.tesla.com/fsd

Zoox: purpose-built taxi shaping the future of transportation https://zoox.com/about

reply
> they are not a solution to transport problems, or to traffic jams

Nor to world hunger.

> companies will enshittify them beyond measure

A hypothetical applicable to every mode of transit, private and public.

> don't think this was even uttered by any of these companies

Things can be true without being in a corporate press release. (Also, you're the one who originally argued these services' "entire social context is 'never encounter another human as you go from A to B'." If not being in a press release is an argument against one, it 's an argument against the other.)

Though, in this case, it has been said: "Waymo gives you your own personal space to focus on more meaningful things" [1].

[1] https://waymo.com/rides/

reply
> Nor to world hunger.

Ah, the good old ad absurdum.

These companies literally hail themselves as "future of transportation".

> A hypothetical applicable to every mode of transit, private and public.

These are private companies looking for profit. These are not hypotheticals given what is happening to other cars and car manufacturers.

> Also, you're the one who originally argued these services' "entire social context is 'never encounter another human as you go from A to B'."

These are literally robo taxis. A taxi is literally a car that is taking you from A to B. And they are also removing the driver from them. Oh, and don't forget the existing of things like Boring Co. which exists almost solely to undermine public transport.

Their intended future is nothing but endless roads with isolated vehicles going from A to B. There's no other "social context".

reply
I like that, because it plays on the Latin "omnibus", which means "for everybody"
reply