| A bus with just 5 people on is already better for the environment than putting those people in cars (1-2 per car), and quickly gets more cost effective. You need a lot less buses than cars to transport the same amount of people. > Also, when you factor in things like the carbon cost of the driver that is needed for the bus, the fact that buses still operate on a schedule and not on demand (therefore leading to an entire bus with a capacity for 40 people being occupied by one or two), and that on average they're much more expensive to transition to more eco-friendly advancements, I would say busses are way worse than a fully functional sdc environment. This paragraph is completely false. There is no reason you cannot have a self driving bus and thus no driver at all. While a bus on a fixed route will be empty at the end of the route, even in the not very dense suburbs they have a lot more people on it. A fixed route is an advantage: you can depend on it! You know where it will be at any time and you can plan. Shared flexible routes cannot work - People need to know they will get to where they are going on time and a shared flexible ride must randomly detour to pickup/drop off someone else and then you miss your schedule. > You could have better and safer bike lanes, slower lanes with with lower speed vehicles that cost ~1k for < 1 mile travel increasing the chances people go and visit nearby businesses I have no idea what you are saying. People have places to go. They want to get there fast, not slow. People already can bike or walk to close places - that they often drive anyway is proof that speed is important. Your argument is completely in bad faith. Don't just take my word for it. https://humantransit.org/2019/08/what-is-microtransit-for.ht... https://humantransit.org/2011/03/how-universal-is-transits-g... is from a real expert in the field that explains why you are wrong starting from fundamentals that do not change. |