| >That's why you run a network of high frequency services (every 10 minutes or better). You turn up at a stop and wait on average 5 minutes Except that isn't realistic for everywhere. Even in a pretty densely populated country there will be areas that just can't justify that high frequency. >again waiting an average time of 5 minutes. That's convenient and you don't have to drive either. I'm living in a country that has, imo, the best public transport in the world. Even in remote areas a bus or train will be there once an hour. Normally it's 30 minutes in smaller towns and 10-15 or less as you go up. The issue is the connections. 5 minutes here, 15 minutes there. You don't have to travel very far before public transit is taking double the time it takes to go by car. I really hate driving, I feel like it's throwing my time in the trash. The issue is, as a programmer, I'm more productive in 2 solid hours than I am in four 1 hour periods. >Would still create congestion on busy routes Congestion shouldn't be any issue at all if everything is computer controlled. When you try to schedule at a certain time the computer can already say that you'll be picked up 10 minutes later and arrive 10 minutes later. Most congestion is caused by stupid things human drivers are doing. Get rid of human drivers and driving suddenly becomes vastly safer. >and I suspect a huge number of these cars would be needed purely to cater for demand for about 2 hours of the day. This could be but that would mean that, say, 80% of all public pool cars would be sitting in a central parking lot most of the day. How is that worse than now with 100% of cars sitting idle most of the day? Plus in many places every family will have 2 or more cars. |