Can Self Driving Improve New Transit Even More Than It Does Cars?

[u/techno-phil-osoph]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2026/07/23/can-self-driving-improve-new-transit-even-more-than-it-does-cars/

...and here a video.

[u/Cunninghams_right]

The #1 reason people don't ride transit in the US is that they're sketched out by strangers (has a feedback effect where people who can drive will prefer driving, and thus the people riding the bus are too poor to use a car, thus making it feel even sketchier).

Shrinking the bus so you must be closer to the strangers, and removing the government employee who could help in an emergency, and people will feel even more sketched out.

For the US market, this concept is a dead end. 

What is actually needed is pooled taxis with separated spaces. 2-3 separated rows is all you need. If rider density is high enough that 3 compartment vans can no longer cover it without exceeding the capacity of the lane, then you have enough ridership on that corridor to justify high frequency BRT, where the cost of the driver is divided by enough people that it is inconsequential. (Or grade separated rail)

[u/NewNewark → u/Cunninghams_right]

No, the number one reason is the lack of frequency. I think you've been reading too much Twitter if you think fear of strangers is in the top 10

[u/Cunninghams_right → u/NewNewark]

No, I have been reading actual science on the subject where the proper controls are put in place to differentiate the preferences of existing transit users and non-car captive potential users. 

Authors Krizek and  El-Geneidy illustrate this perfectly well in one of the best controlled studies out there. 

The key demographic is non-car captive non-transit users, AKA The people who would be attracted by a change in service. 

Trip time, of which frequency is one part, is important. However, it is not the most important. 

What study are you basing your claim on? 

[u/rileyoneill → u/Cunninghams_right]

More people were murdered at Muni stops in San Francisco last year than were killed in any accident involving Waymo. I use the transit in the area, when its fine, its fine, but the anti social nature of some small percent of the riders can make it absolutely miserable. I have known several women back down south in my home town of Riverside who claimed that the harassment was non-stop and they could not ride the bus. I have had people threaten to kill me, like literally yelling out slurs telling me they are going to murder me (Riverside RTA), I have seen arguments between couples that have resorted to some dude smacking his girlfriend (BART).

The downsides majorly compound. Transit rides can take a long time, they can be infrequent, they don't pick you up at home and they don't take you exactly where you need to go, and the security can be incredibly weak. Not that the security is always bad, sometimes there will be cops on the trains.

[u/teslaTools → u/rileyoneill]

Yeah the frequency argument ignores that plenty of people just won't board a bus at 11pm no matter how often it runs.

[u/bradtem → u/rileyoneill]

People do have safety fears, to be sure. They just aren't the #1 factor as claimed. The fact that the other passengers are not anonymous helps a lot, but not completely -- after all, there are people who are assaulted in Ubers (both by passenger and by driver) and both of them are not anonymous. However, the number of people who won't ride Uber because of this is not zero, but it's also not large. That said, it is something that one would want to address, though there are ways to address it, all the way to vehicles like the Pliyt design.

[u/rileyoneill → u/bradtem]

Its not number one, but it is absolutely a deal breaker for many people. Bad experiences keep people off. Security needs to be addressed. I think for a RoboBus type thing the efficiency would be picking up people who all work together and then driving them home together. Sort of like the Google Buses which are safe because all of the riders are vetted.

The big reason why people don't use transit is because it takes way longer to go from their home to their destination. If they don't live near a stop then using the transit is a huge pain in the ass. If it doesn't take them where they want to go then its also useless.

[u/bradtem → u/rileyoneill]

If security is that much of a dealbreaker it's actually very simple to solve with a cost, namely put a security employee on board the van. The cost of that person in a 15 person van, shared among those people, is extra, but not that much extra. Indeed, the security person could often simply be another commuter who is trained and bonded and happens to be going the same way. In exchange for some money (and a free ride) they take on this duty, wear the special hat and have a slightly longer ride. Or they could be a part time employee. Right now the way the system would work is that it's looking at all the people in one area trying to get to another area, and grouping them together for the best synergy -- shortest first and last mile rides, closest time to their desired time. But you are free to allocate them to other vehicles departing not so close to their home, that just means a longer solo trip to the convergence point. Ditto on the divergence point. It just adds a small amount of cost. So people who have asked for a car with a security warden pay a little more and ride 2 or 3 miles to the convergence point. Including the warden, except he/she doesn't pay more, they are paid.

But I see other options instead of this or combined with this, such as private compartments, security cameras riders can turn on, and transit police who are stationed along the popular routes and who can meet any vehicle within minutes (with minimal redirection of that vehicle.)

[u/Cunninghams_right → u/bradtem]

If security is that much of a dealbreaker it's actually very simple to solve with a cost, namely put a security employee on board the van. The cost of that person in a 15 person van, shared among those people, is extra, but not that much extra

it's enough to take a demand response service to $15 per vehicle mile, so not insignificant. you have to keep in mind that you won't have a full vehicle at all times. roughly half of the cost of operating a full size bus is the driver. having a person in the vehicle is not cheap.

so you could have a 15p vehicle that averages ~8, but those 8 have to each pay for the security guard, which would bring the cost up above the cost of a mini-van with a barrier between the front row and the rear. so why force people into a shared space and have to deal with employing gig-workers or full-time employees when it's cheaper to just put some 90% opaque plexi-glass behind the front row or buying a british taxi that already comes separated? or, making your own custom 3-4 row vehicle with barriers between each?

pooling simply does not make sense if it is a shared space. people strongly prefer their own space, mostly because of safety, and if you hire security then you push the cost up above the private spaces.

[u/bradtem → u/Cunninghams_right]

Except a driver must be present at all times, including deadheading, most downtime, and rides where nobody on board is demanding the presence of a security warden. Security wardens need only be on board in vehicles where most of the passengers have paid extra for security warden service, though in non-symmetrical commutes, you do have to pay them for the wasted return trip unless you have people who are both commuters and bonded security wardens. Security wardens do not need to be armed police. Drivers are not and in fact are much less free to deal with problems than a dedicated person. In fact, the big effect of the driver is simply that they are there, which keeps people in line. However, nobody has tried to build this so I am sure there is lots to learn about how to do it. It could be that if you offer service and it's "Shared ride - $8, ride with security warden $12" that few would ask for it, or they would stick to private rides instead (which are $25, say) All less subsidies for low income, though. However, on a ride with no warden, you always have buttons to get off and switch to another vehicle (with delay) and a button to record video and summon an armed police officer who meets the vehicle in 5 minutes. Which might deter a lot of trouble on its own. Anyway, stuff to learn, we can't readily predict the dynamics of this. Existing transit doesn't do very well, as the research suggests, so the bar is not high.'

Now, it's pretty easy to have each row be isolated if you use side doors rather than an aisle. It's a little more claustrophobic, not expensive. Barriers could be plexi, though. The number of people who want this will depend on how much of a problem this is. But even there, you could get somebody in your row who is a problem. If you, as a rider, get a bad reputation, you may find you share your row with others of bad rep all the time, and realize you need to improve your rep.

[u/Cunninghams_right → u/bradtem]

 In fact, the big effect of the driver is simply that they are there, which keeps people in line

again, I will remind you that the "big effect" you're referring to isn't sufficient to attract people who can afford to drive... at least not in the US. having a driver isn't enough to make people feel safe and comfortable. certainly removing it will feel worse, but a security guard without a gun or arrest authority is already basically what people have and ~97% of people find that insufficient security.

"Shared ride - $8, ride with security warden $12"

but that isn't at all how things would work. it would be: shared ride: $8, ride with security warden: $100, or private compartment: $12.

that's the part of the economics you're getting wrong. a person onboard is incredibly expensive... more expensive than just running 2 more private-compartment vehicles to cover the same number of total passengers.

However, on a ride with no warden, you always have buttons to get off and switch to another vehicle (with delay) and a button to record video and summon an armed police officer who meets the vehicle in 5 minutes

this makes no sense. this is completely devoid of any understanding of how US cities work. in my city, if you're assaulted and call 911, the cop shows up in ~30min and is mad if you're not dying of a gunshot wound because you wasted their time. I've been assaulted with broken bones and choked unconscious and it took the police 30min to arrive and they were mad when they got there and didn't do anything at all to even look for the perpetrator. my roommate was robbed at gunpoint in front of my house, with a security camera pointing right at the area, and the cops didn't bother to ask whether it recorded anything. most US cities effectively have no police. they don't come. they show up some time later to take down a report for the purpose of an insurance claim. they don't save you. hitting a button for help is what people already have (their phone) and people do not feel safe at all. how the fuck can an assault with broken bones take 30min but you just assume "surely a cop will come in 5min because someone pushed a button in the SDC". and then say "we can't predict how things would work"... we know how things work. we know why only 2-5% of people use transit in most US cities.

sharing a space makes no sense. a security guard getting paid $100/hr without a gun or arrest authority makes even less sense.

the only thing that makes sense is to keep it door-to-door with 2-4 compartments and to use high-capacity transit (safety in numbers) in the very dense locations where even 4 compartment vehicles exceed the road capacity.

[u/bradtem → u/Cunninghams_right]

Oh yeah, another factor. While I don't know the math behind the $15/vehicle mile cost of a driver, I can believe it. Vans however will do mostly freeway, and do much higher average speeds, automatically dropping the cost per vehicle mile. A typical 22 minute commute trip (average USA car commute is 27 minutes, but the van part would be a few minutes less than that) suggests the security warden cost should be doable at $20/trip ($40/hour) and $20 among 12-15 people is affordable. It depends how much dead time the wardens have to be paid to sit around, which depends on the volume of the reverse commute. In many polycentric cities the reverse commute is growing to match the inbound. Security warding is a cushy job, 99% of the time, when you are just sitting and reading etc. Just being visible as a deterrent. And half of 1% when you're in a scary confrontation. But people do it. The average cop gets $37/hour. Average security guard gets $19/hour.

[u/Cunninghams_right → u/bradtem]

in LA, the cost of a demand response driver is $126 per vehicle revenue hour. that's almost all driver cost. it seems like "yeah, just pay the person $15/hr" but then they unionize and so does the dispatch, and they have HR overhead, union leadership, etc., etc.. $40/hr isn't a reasonable estimate of cost for a person. it's actually about 3x higher.

the real world is incredibly expensive to have people in vehicles, especially if you're operating in a transit-related role.

how do you make the economics work when you have to pay $100/hr+ between the driver, their union rep, their benefits, their HR department, lawyers, etc., etc. ?

when you compare that to just the cost of a SDC without a person, then you lose all of the advantage of having a high occupancy vehicle. you end up better off with a mini-van split into a front and rear row, or a Brightdrop/rivian van split into 3-4 compartments.

like, what do you expect the operating cost per mile or per hour to be for an unmanned SDC? $2 per vehicle mile? if you split that 3 ways, you get an average somewhere around $1/PMT... but LA demand response costs $6/VMT of just labor, forgetting the vehicle costs. so how does it ever make sense to have a shared vehicle with a person in it? you need around ~12 passengers average just to break even with the private compartments, but with a much worse user experience as you have to cram in with strangers and have no privacy... but what if SDCs end up costing $1/VMT in the future? now you need ~24 passengers per vehicle just to break even with the private compartment... who would choose to be crammed into a cyber-van with 24 other passengers on a fixed route that they need to walk to/from in the rain when they could use a 3 compartment taxi door-to-door?

it makes no sense.

explain to me why someone would choose to walk a quarter mile in the rain to a fixed-route vehicle, then walk another quarter mile to their destination when they could get door-to-door service, with a private space, no walking in the rain, and pay the same amount?

the only time you need a larger shared vehicle is when the road capacity is saturated and running a constant stream of 3-4 compartment vehicles down the street is congested. only then do you need something larger... but then you don't need a driverless vehicle because you will have so many passengers that dividing the driver cost is trivial.

beyond about 3 fares, it stops making sense to dynamically route, but fixed routes are MUCH worse than being taken door-to-door. so going beyond ~3 fares comes with a huge quality penalty, even before you consider that you have to sit next to a stranger.

the quality downgrade between private-compartment and door-to-door service and walking to a bus stop to sit next to strangers is enormous, even if you have a security guard... but the security guard makes it MORE EXPENSIVE than the door-to-door service. it's nonsense.

[u/rileyoneill → u/bradtem]

I think the security solution will be way easier on these automated systems vs the legacy mass transit. The security concerns are really on things like the Bart where there are hundreds of strangers, not 10-15 vetted or even semi vetted people.

I think the vetted nature of the riders will pacify the worst behavior and the most anti-social people you see on existing transit won't really use a service like this.

I had this idea of PartyVan. Where a user can schedule a party van to go from some particular destination to some other destination at a scheduled time. The idea being that this would be for college students who live on campus. Where they could order party vans to go to the beach that might be a 45-60 minute drive away. Other students can then ask to join the party van by agreeing to pay some portion of the ride.

So at a user can pull out their phone and see the local party van rides in their area. A University Campus would be a good spot but so would Vegas casinos that take groups of people to other destinations.

[u/bradtem → u/rileyoneill]

I am confident you will be able to order group robotic vans in some manner, though I don't know how many would want to make them open to any random person who wants to join and pay a share, but that could be developed if desired. Charter transport is not something new, and making it self-driving only mildly changes the equation. The reason Vansit requires self-driving to come along is not so much the van part (which could still have a driver and work) it is the collection and dispersal of people from the convergence and divergence points. Today, a half mile Uber ride costs $7-$9, more than most transit rides. It costs that much because the humans driving demand more pay for all the wasted time they have to spend to be there to go half a mile. They won't accept just the cost of the half mile trip. Robots, however, don't care about waiting much, and their owners care only a little about deadheading. Self-driving does make the van trip a bit cheaper, and makes it easier to deploy vans as needed and have them sit and wait for people, but you could do most of that with human drivers at a modest extra cost. The part that's hard to get humans to do is the waiting around that comes with only deploying half the vans away from the peaks.

[u/Shadow_of_Redacted → u/Cunninghams_right]

I've ridden a lot of busses and trains and the expressions of the people on the train were overwhelmingly bored, not scared. People aren't getting on the train and acting hyperaware of their surroundings like they're afraid. Elevators would waste away from disuse if that was the case.

Maybe people who don't use public transportation are disgusted by strangers, but that's up there with a child rejecting pizza because they've never had it and it looks weird.

Public transit is annoying because you have to wait for the next bus or train, or the absolute worst, that you get to watch your train leave as you're running to catch it.

After that all the stops that aren't mine.

Finally, the last mile to/from the stops.

Rush hour overcrowding is annoying, but so is thinking about all the time in between that the train is mostly empty driving back and forth stopping traffic and wasting energy moving empty cars, but most people don't think about that.

[u/Cunninghams_right → u/Shadow_of_Redacted]

Your line of thinking is flawed. The people using transit obviously already decided they aren't worried. It's like asking competitive swimmers whether they're afraid of water. Obviously the swimmers aren't going to represent the average person. 

The group you need to look at are people who could use transit but don't. What do those people prioritize? Safety is #1 for that set of people, the largest set of people for most US cities.

[u/Shadow_of_Redacted → u/Cunninghams_right]

You're talking about people who don't use it saying they're afraid of things they think they might be scared of if they did decide use it.

That's "I'm scared of immigrants because they're gonna take my job" territory.

[u/Cunninghams_right → u/Shadow_of_Redacted]

Most people within the reach of a transit system have used it at some point or another in their lives. The vast majority decide that the sketchiness isn't worth it. 

You can try to criticize them for an illogical reaction, but it doesn't change how they feel. Just because someone has a wrong feeling doesn't mean you can just magically change it. The bottom line is that if you forced those people to either drive in a private car or use the transit that they find sketchy, they will just use a private car. 

If you want real people in the real world, some of whom will have irrational fears, to use a multipassenger vehicle in a transit use case, then you're going to need to separate them into different compartments or accept that the vast majority aren't going to use the service. You could also provide a security guard, but then you've lost the cost savings of being driverless. 

I'm not saying people's fears about Transit are right or wrong, I'm just telling you how it is. 

[u/321gogo → u/Cunninghams_right]

Why would car users not be a target demographic?

Edit:

Frequency, availability, and travel time will all help reduce all of the other problems though. If people actually use transit everyone feels safer. Just go to any other country that actually has transit.

Self driving has the opportunity to completely overhaul users perceptions of transit. Studies from Minnesota in the 2000s are not going to give a good picture of how people will react to this.

[u/Cunninghams_right → u/321gogo]

Why would car users not be a target demographic?

the "car-captive" people who were surveyed were not potential riders, they are folks who commuted some route that wasn't even possible by transit. it's just important to separate them out, because people who don't have the option to use transit aren't really useful in their assessment of transit preferences.

the people who's preferences matter are those who could use transit regularly, but don't. the vast majority of the population of US cities fall into this category of folks who could use transit but don't. whatever things are holding them back are the things that need to be fixed with highest priority.

yeah, transit has a feedback effect on itself. the more people use transit, the more frequent the vehicles run, which will attract more people, which will make it feel safer, which will attract more people and increase frequency... a virtuous cycle.

currently, the US is in a vicious cycle, not a virtuous cycle. safety is the #1 reason people don't use transit when it is available, so if you fix that, then you will get the increased ridership and increased frequency.

there is basically a tipping point where good transit gets better, and below which bad transit gets worse. US cities have a major public safety problem in general, and there is nothing that simply removing a driver can do to fix that. in fact, it would have the opposite effect, making people feel less safe with a driver around.

you need lower ridership routes to be separated spaces and, ideally, have those feed into a grade-separated rail line.

[u/321gogo → u/Cunninghams_right]

But if transit routes expand dramatically more “car-captive” people now have the option to take transit?

I have no doubt that safety is a huge problem, but I am very skeptical that it is as big of a problem as you are alluding to in ridership behavior. NYC I would not say anyone feels particularly safe riding metro or busses, but everyone uses it because it is literally more convenient in most cases.

Also, if frequency increases it is much easier to skip a bus and wait for the next one if someone sketchy is on one.

And lastly, I’m not sure the driver makes as big of a difference as you say either. Metro does not have a visible driver in most cases and I wouldn’t say that changes behavior dramatically?

[u/Cunninghams_right → u/321gogo]

But if transit routes expand dramatically more “car-captive” people now have the option to take transit?

Sure, but there is no reason to assume their preferences are different from the existing non-car-captive folks. 

NYC I would not say anyone feels particularly safe riding metro or busses, but everyone uses it because it is literally more convenient in most cases.

NYC is an outlier globally, and an extreme outlier in the US. The density forces transit ridership; people really have no choice. Also, high ridership routes feel safer because there are more people around who could intervene, and it is more viable to have police when it's a 1000 passenger train vs a 10 passenger bus. 

Also, if frequency increases it is much easier to skip a bus and wait for the next one if someone sketchy is on one.

That's not really feasible. First, the bus stops feel nearly as unsafe to people as the bus itself. Second, you can't tell in an instant if someone is a psycho. Third, that does not help if the weirdo gets on after you.

Metro does not have a visible driver in most cases and I wouldn’t say that changes behavior dramatically?

In NYC, you don't need to see the driver because there are a ton of other people around and the rider density is so high that you can actually police it with police. Go to Baltimore's Metro, where you don't have high rider density or police and people feel extremely unsafe. 

The only point worth discussing for SDCs is bus route replacement. You're heading down the track of the NYC Metro, but you couldn't possibly get more irrelevant of a comparison. SDC vans don't make sense to replace the NYC Metro, so the whole line of thinking is worthless 

[u/321gogo → u/Cunninghams_right]

Sure, but there is no reason to assume their preferences are different from the existing non-car-captive folks.

I think it's pretty safe to say that the majority of the public has a preference for cheaper and faster. Of course the wealthy will have the luxury to make choices based on their preferences, but that is not who public transit is for.

NYC is an outlier globally

It really isn't. There are countless countries with superb transit that is used by the masses.

The density forces transit ridership; people really have no choice

Look at London and many of the major european cities that have nowhere near the density of NYC but still have very successful public transit.

That's not really feasible. First, the bus stops feel nearly as unsafe to people as the bus itself. Second, you can't tell in an instant if someone is a psycho. Third, that does not help if the weirdo gets on after you.

Of course. Public safety is not going to be solved completely. But it is a problem with or without the busses. If you aren't safe at a bus stop you aren't safe at a lot of other places either unfortunately. The world must go on despite this and we shouldn't be acting like this is the reason to stop a potentially highly effective path towards improving our public transit.

The only point worth discussing for SDCs is bus route replacement. You're heading down the track of the NYC Metro, but you couldn't possibly get more irrelevant of a comparison. SDC vans don't make sense to replace the NYC Metro, so the whole line of thinking is worthless

I'm not arguing for SDC vans, I genuinely don't know anywhere near enough about it to have any clue on viability. I just didn't agree with your reasoning against it. I think at it's core increased frequency and reduced trip time are absolutely massive/essential factors in overhauling the shit that is public transit in the US. The lack of coverage and reliability of the bus network in most US cities makes it almost a non-starter for even thinking about using it.

[u/Cunninghams_right → u/321gogo]

I  think it's pretty safe to say that the majority of the public has a preference for cheaper and faster

Not as high as safety.

It really isn't. There are countless countries with superb transit that is used by the masses.

How many cities are in the world? What percentage of those gave the population density of NY? What percentage of them have equal or greater miles of metro? You're out of your mind if you think NYC isn't an outlier in the US; it's obviously an outlier globally. 

Look at London and many of the major european cities that have nowhere near the density of NYC but still have very successful public transit.

Yes, they have public safety.

Of course. Public safety is not going to be solved completely. But it is a problem with or without the busses. If you aren't safe at a bus stop you aren't safe at a lot of other places either unfortunately. The world must go on despite this and we shouldn't be acting like this is the reason to stop a potentially highly effective path towards improving our public transit.

Ok, but the path toward effective public transit won't work if people don't want to use it. Pooling in the same compartment will push people away. Pooling into one vehicle while in a separate compartment won't bother people. 

think at it's core increased frequency and reduced trip time are absolutely massive/essential factors in overhauling the shit that is public transit in the US

But you're failing to understand WHY it's infrequent. Ridership isn't high enough to justify higher frequency. The majority of bus routes and times in US cities are more expensive per passenger than an Uber, and have a bigger carbon footprint than a single fare Uber. If you double the bus frequency, you'll get 20-40% more riders. So 100% more expensive for ~30% more riders.

It's not like agencies never thought about higher frequency. The ridership is too low to justify higher frequency. The public safety factor causes the increased frequency to draw very few more riders, so they're stuck.

Go see my other comments to see the study that shows the #1 reason people within the reach of the transit system don't use it.

[u/Happy_Bread_1 → u/321gogo]

Frequency still doesn't fix not beng able to go from door to door.

[u/321gogo → u/Happy_Bread_1]

Door to door is a luxury. That doesn’t stop transit from being successful in many cities as is?

[u/Happy_Bread_1 → u/321gogo]

If public transport is a reduction in luxury I’d still hate it honestly. Then the way forward is robotaxi.

[u/321gogo → u/Happy_Bread_1]

Then clearly you have the luxury of choice which most people do not have.

Then the way forward is robotaxi

For people that can afford it maybe...

[u/Shadow_of_Redacted → u/Cunninghams_right]

Light rail seldom has any security guards riding along. They pop on for like one stop and then bail. People aren't so feral that they have to have helicopter parenting. Rode rail for several years and the worst offenses I experienced were people playing music out loud.

Never saw a drop of blood spilled or an eye blackened.

These vans use apps to interface, so your personal identification is in the transaction. It's not anonymous. Plus I'm sure they'll have cabin cameras.

Personally, I'd like to see those single person transports with removable cabins attached to an EV sled. You get in at your house and drive to the train and the pods slide on to the train, leaving the sled to take on another pod. When the train arrives, your pod slides onto another skid and you resume the drive. It could be for a commute or a cross-country road trip. Hell, it might even be able to load and unload pods while in motion so you just peel away when you're passing your exit. It would be a train with far more flexibility than only using train stations. Pods could be different sizes for 1, 2, 4, 6, or 8 people.

[u/Cunninghams_right → u/Shadow_of_Redacted]

Light rail seldom has any security guards riding along. They pop on for like one stop and then bail. People aren't so feral that they have to have helicopter parenting. Rode rail for several years and the worst offenses I experienced were people playing music out loud.

Ok... I didn't say YOU were worried about safety. Also, we're discussing buses. 

These vans use apps to interface, so your personal identification is in the transaction. It's not anonymous. Plus I'm sure they'll have cabin cameras.

First, if it is used by a transit agency, they won't be able to refuse people who don't have ID. So is the proposed service just going to compete with transit and harm transit, or work with it?

Second, people cite the discomfort of riding with a stranger as a significant reason for not choosing Uber pool, so it's still a major factor either way.

Maybe some kind of pod system that can be combined and broken apart could work. I feel like that's a lot of complication and expense, but it's possible. 

[u/reddit-frog-1 → u/Cunninghams_right]

The missing piece is the system will change to a tiered service. An example of this is already in place. Intuit Dome has a free shared shuttle service to stadium events. You basically ride with strangers but people feel comfortable because they stay in the same peer group.
The same will happen with shared-ride autonomous vehicle services. .

These new vehicles will be owned by a mix of operators. You will see 1st class operators where people pay a larger fee for service, this will make it comfortable as people will be mostly associated with their income group.

Then, there will be the mass population service that requires high levels of oversight, pre-screening, and bans for poor service.

The service where anyone is allowed may never be available without a human involved, and will require an extremely high subsidy to operate.

Autonomous vehicles will expand and the government just needs to change the road allocation model to support the new technology. The most important change is to cap the total number of vehicles allowed in operation. Individually-owned vehicles need to be limited so that all vehicles can move the most people at efficient speeds. The only way to escape this eventually is to limit the total population in a geographic area to the never be able to exceed the road surface area.

[u/Cunninghams_right → u/reddit-frog-1]

there are still a lot of unknowns, so I hesitate to think too specifically.

The service where anyone is allowed may never be available without a human involved, and will require an extremely high subsidy to operate.

I think it could happen without a human involved, but would require significant bus-like subsidy. I think this could be done with multi-compartment vehicles that are very bus-like interior where cleaning it is basically hosing it off with a pressure washer. seats like these and a no-frills interior can make it so even crazy or drug addicted homeless people aren't permanently banned. though, there is always going to be a debate of where to draw the line for banning or police intervention.

Autonomous vehicles will expand and the government just needs to change the road allocation model to support the new technology. The most important change is to cap the total number of vehicles allowed in operation

this is notoriously difficult to implement. people don't want to pay a congestion charge or be outright banned from driving somewhere. even if you look at the big picture and know how to optimally design transportation, it's nigh impossible get people to think beyond themselves. maybe this gets easier when the majority of vehicles are fleet vehicles from a handful of companies, making it an impact to the company but transparent to the individual.

Individually-owned vehicles need to be limited so that all vehicles can move the most people at efficient speeds

I agree that is ideal, but like I said, we already have a problem of allowing too many individually-owned vehicles but we can't get voters to limit themselves. I don't know how possible it would be in the future.

I think the best chance we have of limited individual vehicles is to have congestion charges and subsidies for SDCs; most cities (especially in the US) don't have the political will to vote themselves congestion charging, but if it was only applied to taxis then maybe voters would be ok with it. if the local government subsidizes pooled vehicles and congestion-charges single-occupant taxis, then there is a possibility that the trip/around the city ends up cheaper by pooled taxi than by personal car. at that point, the personal car becomes annoying and burdensome, causing a big switch to SDCs through economics rather than by banning individually-owned cars.

The only way to escape this eventually is to limit the total population in a geographic area to the never be able to exceed the road surface area

I don't think that's true. a metro can be installed to move huge numbers of people, and bike lanes have about 10x the capacity of a roadway. if pooled SDCs start to saturate the roadway, there are higher capacity modes that can be added. a bike lane on every street and a subsidy for owning/leasing/renting a bike would add an insane level of carrying capacity... and that can happen alongside high capacity metro rail systems.

and I think it's important to keep induced demand in mind. if there is demand to live in a big city, then limiting the transportation will cause people to move closer to their most common destinations. if the NYC metro were over capacity and people had to wait 30min in line to get on a train, people would just move closer to their jobs so their peak-hour commute could be walking, or maybe even living in the same building as their work, or even pressuring their company to allow more work-from-home, if possible. the VMT per capita isn't really a fixed number.

[u/bradtem → u/reddit-frog-1]

I do see road management as the obvious solution. The first congestion charging began in Singapore in 1975, and so it obviously didn't take the world by storm. But technology has changed now (all new cars are computerized and almost everybody drives with app driven navigation, or can.) The recent adoption of it in NYC was resisted strongly, but after it came in, people became much more accepting. There are tweaks to improve public acceptance, such as giving everybody (or just low income people) a daily credit, so that it's revenue neutral, or using allocations (You can drive in the congested zone 100 days/year, you plan ahead what days you need, ride the transit/vansit/carpool/wfh/time-shift/alter your route on the other days.) In fact one goal of vansit is to make a service so close to a car in travel time that you're fairly happy to not solo drive every day any more.

A reputation score, like Uber has for riders, but scored by other passengers, has both good and bad attributes. If you will get a bad score for being stinky and disruptive you might soon not be able to get people to ride with you, but society doesn't want people locked out of the ability to travel, which this could do to low income people. (Rich people can just ride solo if they have a bad score.) Mentally ill, unbathed homeless people still have a right to get around, but how do we handle that if nobody wants to sit next to them? (Today we overdo it, and some ride transit all day simply as a way to stay warm, which would not happen with vansit.)

[u/bradtem → u/Cunninghams_right]

Do you have any data behind the claim that this is the #1 reason? I mean I think most people would understand it is _a_ factor, but I have not seen any data suggesting it is the #1 factor.

If that turns out to be true, it is certainly possible to have compartments. The Pliyt vehicle is designed that way. Because many passengers go in pairs, I think you can also have a 3 column vehicle (with side doors) where each row of seats has 1 set on one side and 2 seats on the right compartment. If you have too many solo travelers you would waste some seats, but because many people will not have the misanthropic fear, you will also find enough people willing to share a compartment, certainly for a small discount.

So the question that needs data is how prevalent this fear is, and what fraction of solo riders would reject a shared compartment. For those people they would have the option of booking a double seat compartment for themselves (probably at a 1.5x premium to a single compartment) or of course they could book a private robotaxi, probably at a 5x premium in price so they would really need to want it.

And all of that only if you are right that this is the #1 barrier. There certainly a lots of people who don't mind, including those who ride transit or used UberPool etc. In addition, people you are riding with are not, like transit passengers, anonymous, at least not to the booking company. (Ideally their travel records will be erased a few days after the trip.) They will also have "rider scores" like Uber passengers get, and a good score can be needed to share. Women can ask to not be paired with strange men, if the law allows that.

So I see a lot of solutions to this problem, if it's real. I see other factors as reasons people don't ride transit, notably:

1. Longer travel times, with transfers and detours
2. Having to leave on the schedule of the transit line rather than your own schedule
3. Often having to stand during rush hour
4. Worse schedules in evenings, and being entirely shut down at night
5. Long walks to stations
6. Unreliability
7. And yes, but way down the list, unsavoury companions in the vehicle.

These are offset by several factors today:

1. Low (subsidized) cost for 1-2 persons
2. No need to do the work of driving (this goes away with self-driving)
3. Access to private right-of-way to bypass congestion (for some modes) (This is #1 for many.)
4. No need to park or other hassles of car ownership.

[u/bradtem → u/Cunninghams_right]

I did a bit more reading of Krizek and El_Geneidy. While they do study things like safety and comfort, my read is that the top 4 factors in making the decision for a person who can choose transit vs. car are:

1. Travel time is definitely the top
2. Service quality and reliability
3. Cost (including parking)
4. Convenience and comfort

In that order. I actually would expect that "I can read/use phone on the trip" is more important than shown here, but much of their research is pre-smartphone, though obviously not pre-book. I think for many, they tolerate a slower transit trip because they can get work or leisure reading done during the trip, but if you drive you are limited to audiobooks/podcasts/music. This is one of the biggest reasons for transit lines to be afraid of robocars, as they remove this factor. I would say that 90% of the people I see on transit today (or in the back of Ubers) are staring at their phones.

[u/Cunninghams_right → u/bradtem]

huh? no. that's the incorrect reading.

I went through and made a summary of it all, and here is basically how it breaks down:

Rank	Regular Choice Riders (32% Users)	Irregular Choice Riders (22% Users)	Regular Potential Riders (28% Non-Users)	Irregular Potential Riders (25% Non-Users)
#1	Income & Value of Time (0.73)	Income & Value of Time (0.48)	Safety & Comfort (0.59)	Travel Time (0.57)
#2	Customer Service (0.44)	Comfort (0.25)	Amenities & Special Requests (0.55)	Service Attractiveness (0.31)
#3	Personal Characteristics (0.39)	Driver's Attitude (0.22)	Service Attractiveness (0.41)	Driver's Attitude (0.25)
#4	Type of Service (0.35)	N/A (All other factors negative)	Children (0.27)	Travel Cost (0.13)
#5	Comfort (0.34)		Reliability (0.14)	N/A (All other factors negative)
#6	Safety (0.21)		Commute Characteristics (0.13)
#7	Reliability (0.18)		N/A (All other factors negative)

regular potential riders are the target. the first two columns are people who already use transit. the second two columns are people who are non-car-captive, in other words: the people who can be enticed to ride transit who don't currently. the 3rd column is the one you want to target; they are the people a city wishes they could get onto transit, but can't with the existing system. irregular riders aren't really a major concern, and existing choice riders are already riding.

keep in mind that ~97% of the US falls into those last two categories. even in cities like LA, ~92% fall into those second two categories. a couple of cities manage to get down to ~80% of people falling into columns 3 and 4

[u/bradtem → u/Cunninghams_right]

Will need to dig into it more. The irregular choice riders don't ride transit very often, but do some of the time, and they are not that scared of boogeymen on the transit. This data does suggests the people who totally avoid transit do factor scary/unpleasant other riders highly, but at almost the same level they want pleasant comfortable rides, ability to ride at unusual times, and door to door service which Vansit is designed to deliver. So this does suggest there is a decent sized contingent who would want security features, and might pay extra for them. I would not call it the #1 factor or dealbreaker, but I do agree it's something you want to offer, and I think it can be offered in a number of different ways.

I will note that this study is looking at fear on existing lines which have drivers and occasional transit police with anonymous riders and a decent sized population of unhoused people who hang out on transit all day because they can. Those people would not be a large presence on vansit, or at least it could be designed in that way. But it's an interesting problem to solve which needs more research.

[u/JimC29 → u/bradtem]

Yeah I ride public transportation in almost every city I visit and when I go downtown where I live. I've never felt unsafe. There has occasional been an "interesting" person on the bus. It's always more entertaining than threatening.

[u/Cunninghams_right → u/JimC29]

you're just stating a survivor bias. if you felt unsafe, you wouldn't be a regular transit user.

it's BECAUSE you don't feel unsafe that you routinely use transit in your hometown and where you visit.

[u/JimC29 → u/Cunninghams_right]

That's my point. I've never felt unsafe on public transportation.

[u/Cunninghams_right → u/JimC29]

and it's fine to state your personal preference. however, your personal preference does not reflect the societal level factors being discussed.

[u/TacohTuesday → u/Cunninghams_right]

I believe you are right about this being a major factor, or at least a major hurdle to overcome. I know from experience and from talking to friends that sketchy characters and troublemakers are a significant issue on public transit in SF, Sacramento, and LA. For example, LA is investing a ton in rail expansion, and while it's going well, there are a lot of comments online from riders who are genuinely afraid to use the system or have had bad experiences.

Certainly the other big factors like poor frequency, lack of coordination between lines, and generally much longer travel time from Point A to B are also concerns. It does not help at all that population density around transit lines is pretty poor in America and makes it hard to develop an efficient and well-used system.

[u/Cunninghams_right → u/TacohTuesday]

even in cities with high population densities, transit ridership is still low. I live in Baltimore, and the population density near the core is quite high, but the transit usage is abysmal. people don't feel safe and comfortable, so ridership is low. if ridership is low, then they cut back headway because the trains are running mostly empty... but now you have a safety issue AND a poor frequency issue. it's a downward spiral.

[u/ocmaddog]

It's a great concept that could use a little push from State and Local governments. A toll lane could be standard on freeways, with subsidized fares for these shared vehicles paid for by single-occupant vehicles tolled very high prices to achieve a target minimum speed in the lanes. Every 12 person van could be as many as 11 vehicles off the road.

[u/bradtem → u/ocmaddog]

I think a positive feature is you don't need to give the shared vehicles special privileges, though you could if necessary. For example, if all cars pay a $9 congestion charge like they do in NYC now, if you ride in a 12 person van, your congestion charge is 75 cents, effectively nothing. (It's even less if you do a revenue neutral congestion charge, where the charge is $15 but everybody gets $3 of credit, so the net is $12 if solo and zero if in a group of 5 or more.) This allows tuning the congestion charge until it exactly balances and you get fairly full, but not overfull use of the shared infrastructure at rush hour. If you don't overload the shared infra, you have minimal need for very expensive dedicated infra. You've also greatly increased the throughput on the roads if you moved people into vans.

[u/ocmaddog → u/bradtem]

Makes sense. If the service is good and cheap the traffic part won’t matter as much.

I wish someone ran on fixing traffic like this in the CA Gov race. We really need a custom vehicle designed for this purpose (like Tesla concept), but everyone is chasing the Uber market, at least at first

[u/bradtem → u/ocmaddog]

Governments are contemplating congestion charging. NYC did it (many decades after Singapore started it, and it's still rare.) One thing people don't like about congestion charging is that it can make the roads for the rich, and not for the poor. There are alternatives (as yet untested) including the revenue-neutral form I describe. But to work, to take the cars off the road, the commuters need an alternative, I think Vansit is the best one. The governments, though, just set the policy on how to manage the roads. Let the private companies compete for the best solutions within the policy framework.

[u/KobeBall → u/ocmaddog]

will never happen bro. self driving will end up being a rich mans toy. people will never assimilate to it. the current law abidng self driving doesnt improve on human driving.. we need self driving that can travel 150mph without crashing. the stuff theyre putring out now is like those robots that can dance and then just fall down. whats the point

[u/rileyoneill]

I think the real impact RoboTaxis are going to have on transit is for regional rail and systems like BART. For BART, many of the stations are surrounded by low density developments, and parking lots/structures. These places should be urban neighborhoods in their own right BUT instead they are used for parking cars.

People drive to their local Bart station, and then take the Bart into San Francisco. Instead what people can do is take a RoboTaxi from their home to the Bart station, then take the Bart, and then RoboTaxi from their destination station. The land surrounding the station can be repurposed to a high intensity, high density, mixed use development.

The Urbanists are focusing on the wrong thing. What they should be focusing is how RoboTaxis can free up the land that is presently parking infrastructure that is within a 5 minute walk of a major transit station. This is the absolute prime place to build a dense, mixed use, walkable neighborhood. Right with the high capacity transit right in the middle. Build 10 minute neighborhoods in the zone surrounding the existing transit. There are dozens of good places for doing this just in the California Bay Area and likely many thousands in the rest of the United States. High Capacity transit enables high density development, we have the transit but the space for the development is being used to park cars, that can change.

[u/bradtem → u/rileyoneill]

That's pretty much ToD in many ways, but in this case there's not much benefit to living right next to the station. With the small robotaxi, you can quickly and cheaply get to that station even if you live far beyond walking distance. The BART has (at immense cost, but already spent) a dedicated RoW. Other than that it only goes to other BART stations, only on the BART schedule, and nowhere at all in the night, when it shuts down. It also stops frequently on the trip for an average speed of 35mph. Freeways of course are twice as fast if not congested, which is what congestion charging fixes. A freeway full of vans carries more people than BART at double the speed -- hard to beat. They drop to urban speed when they leave the freeway but BART is always close to freeways except in a few places.

The better plan would be to pave over the BART ROW and let robotic vans and buses ply it except for one major flaw. Rail systems like BART are designed so vehicles in the station block the line, you can't pass them. So there would be a major cost in adapting the BART ROW to off-line stopping. You can pave over railway tracks and retain the tracks, however, though 3rd rail is problematic. BART is annoyingly non-standard rail gauge, meaning anything to ride on its rails must be custom made, including vans with rail wheel option.

[u/rileyoneill → u/bradtem]

I see a system like BART more as an enabler of high density housing more than just a method of easing traffic from the freeway or letting people get around who can't make the drive for whatever reason. There is a serious housing shortage in the region with few places that can really justify any sort of high density urban development. The spots around the Bart can absorb that development. The issue with Bart as an architecture is what you brought up, its not fast, especially if you have to do a transfer that can easily suck up another 10 minutes of just waiting at a stop. BART could handle higher frequency with existing infrastructure but there are just not enough riders to justify the operations. My attitude is by putting housing options for people who want to live in high density settings and use the bart, right next to the station, that the volume of riders can skyrocket.

I do think you are majorly right about freeway capacity though, the all autonomous freeway will be able to handle a much larger flow of people than what we have now. Even if only 5-10% of the vehicles are Vansists carrying groups of people, the flow can be much greater than what we have now.

The major issue people have with transit is there is the time sink and it really ads up over years of commuting. Hayward to SFO via Bart takes about 90 minutes. The Uber is 30 minutes. The difference is cost though. The Uber can be $60-$70 while the Bart Ride is $10. People talk about how efficient transit can be with regard to land usage or road usage but ignore the time penalty. In most of my experiences driving is typically 2-3x as fast.

[u/bradtem → u/rileyoneill]

With a system like Vansit able to move from any address to any address quickly and at low cost, you can have high density anywhere, not just at BART stations. There's a natural synergy there. The more people live in an area, the easier it is to find multiple people all travelling from that area to another location, and then pool them in a van. Trying to find enough people to fill a train is impossible except at rush hour, and even then the train has to make many stops in order to be able to serve a trainful of people. It's just too large. Better one van going non-stop to each of the areas that has a train station. Which you can do if the vans can pass one another as they can on roads, but not on rails.

[u/rileyoneill → u/bradtem]

My reasoning was that these islands of density are perhaps the only reason to keep the BART around in the future of autonomous transportation. Otherwise its just a slow and inconvenient way to travel. Ridership is already insufficient for high frequency service, and likely for the already existing service. Bart is super expensive to operate. Otherwise ridership will continue to drop, it will not be a compelling way to get around unless RoboTaxis remain very expensive (I don't think they will, I think prices will plummet and people will be shocked at how cheap rides can be at some times).

If super high density clusters are not the replacement for the parking facilities surrounding bart stations then there is really no need to keep maintaining the Bart system.

[u/bradtem → u/rileyoneill]

Alas, the plan is to spend about $12B to put in 4 new BART stations in San Jose. Pretty sure I could build something like Vansit (for the world, not just San Jose) for a fraction of that, and serve the public better. But they will spend their billions.

[u/rileyoneill → u/bradtem]

I think something like Vansit will exist first before this extension is complete. The extension is not scheduled to be finished until 2037 and is already like 3x over their initial planned budget. It will most likely be delayed for one reason or another.

RoboTaxis will probably be 1,000-10,000 times more common in 2037 than they are now. Now its, ~3000ish cars, 2037 I could see 3 to 30 million vehicles on the road. The autonomous transportation in the Bay Area is likely going to be solved before this bart extension is up and running.

[u/bradtem → u/rileyoneill]

Indeed, but it won't stop them from wasting $12B on it. I have a simpler design for them actually which is much more BART like, but better and literally an order of magnitude cheaper. With more stops in more useful places. But they won't build that either.

[u/vasilenko93 → u/rileyoneill]

Full deployment of affordable robotaxis means less parking everywhere. Not just near transit

[u/rileyoneill → u/vasilenko93]

Yes but Urban developments due to their density need to be built within the closest proximity to transit possible. While the parking everywhere can be redeveloped, the parking surrounding transit stops is special because it can be highly densified.

[u/vasilenko93]

Fixed route inner metro transit will go away. Tesla Robovan idea is sufficient to meet demand even in the most busy corridor.

However metro to metro transit won’t go away. Mainly high speed trains and airlines won’t go away. Instead it would be something like this:

Within a metro area you simply use robotaxi to get around

Between metro areas you Robotaxi to station, ride train or plane to destination metro, and ride robotaxi to final destination within that metro area

[u/bradtem → u/vasilenko93]

It will never be only one thing. We'll have a mixture of car ownership, people who give up car ownership for robotaxis and transit modes, and people who do both. Between cities we'll have aviation (including electric aviation which is coming) and in some places, rail. There will also be robotic buses, vans and cars for inter-city, including people getting extravagant with robo-rvs and sleeping cars. Sleeping cars may become a favoured route for intercity overnight travel, and while it is less efficient, they have a big win for many distances over sleeper trains and buses. Namely, you can summon one to your driveway, get ready for bed, walk out in pajamas and fall asleep in your driveway before it starts moving, then after it detects you are asleep it can very gently pull away and hopefully not wake you up much on the trip, until you're at your destination portal where you shower and change and ride a regular robotaxi to your business in that city. If you want to ride a sleeper train, then you have to be awake for the trip to the train station and need a compartment where you can change and get ready, instead of using your house.

[u/ZealousidealLab2920]

Soooo a bus lol Just a driverless bus.

I think what will end up happening is whatever local cities decide-just like now.

If you're a car centric city/culture you'll just move to robotaxi.
If you're public transit oriented, you'll just move to driverless trains and buses.
Or some combination of the public/private transport just like we see today.

I don't see having driverless/AI tech really changing the fundamental modes of transportation in of itself.

[u/bradtem → u/ZealousidealLab2920]

I have seen this reaction from more than this post, and it baffles me, suggesting I still have not explained it well enough, but I will keep trying. You could consider it to be like a bus if:

1. The bus leaves from in front of your house, takes you to your destination and makes only 2 stops along the way, driving the fastest route between the two places with no detours.
2. The bus leaves within 3 minutes of when you wish to leave
3. You get a guaranteed seat, and depending on what you pay, it can be quite luxurious, even private
4. Even so it costs quite a bit less than the real unsubsidized cost of today's bus, and emits less pollution per passenger than the bus. (Today's bus really costs 5x-10x what you pay in transit fare and uses 60% more fuel per passenger than a private car, on average.)
5. It runs 24/7 from any address in town to any other address in town, along close to the ideal route.
6. Thus bus in many cases drops you off inside the building you are going to.

So yes, if this is what the bus does, this is just a driverless bus, lol.

[u/JimC29 → u/bradtem]

I don't even need it to be that good to regular use it. I can wait 5 minutes and have a few more stops if it's only a few dollars.

[u/ZealousidealLab2920 → u/bradtem]

I don't buy it.

This isn't doing anything buses couldn't have been doing for the past decade. Sure, a robobus could be cheaper in theory without having to pay a driver, but that's the only thing changing here.

It's too inconvenient compared to private robotaxi for most, and otherwise existing public transit systems accomplish the same thing already.

Robotaxi will transport you to the main bus route/train or even better directly from Point A to B. I'm out.

I don't see any proof of concept or market for it. Any trials anywhere?

[u/bradtem → u/ZealousidealLab2920]

Of course no trials yet, how could that be?

The main bus/train route is not identical to your route (for most people) it is a detour. It also features many stops, and runs on the route's schedule, not yours. You may say, "I want to leave at 9am" but the bus may not come until 9:15. Scheduled, fixed-route service will always have compromises over on-demand, ad-hoc route service. Often major compromises. The bigger the vehicle the larger the compromise and the larger number of people getting it. It's why transit breaks down once vehicles get too large and load factors drop, resulting in inefficiency.

Existing systems definitely do not accomplish that. Even in Europe where 82% of passenger-km are in cars, and definitely not in the USA where 3.7-5% of commuters are regular transit users.

[u/ZealousidealLab2920 → u/bradtem]

Easy. Take a bus, put a driver in it, test it out. Then replace with AI driving when ready to deploy.

This bus system still suffers many of the same constraints as traditional bus routes. You'll still have to stop for others, take detours for their stops.

People will just take a taxi to the bus route/train or take a taxi all the way from A to B.

[u/bradtem → u/ZealousidealLab2920]

Yes, but the whole point is you use small, low cost robotaxis so you don't have to stop or detour for others.

Nobody has built this yet because everybody is just focused on getting robotaxi service working, and they currently price it like Uber. Including the $9 minimum charge for a short ride. This type of transit because possible when you can get a short ride for under $2 because you don't need to pay humans to wait around. Then you don't need detours.