[supertrope]

In wealthy countries 2/3 of public transit costs is hiring drivers. Peak demand determines how many drivers and buses you need. If vehicles are completely filled customers will have to wait for the next one. So using smaller vehicles doesn’t save as much money as one would think.

[xnx]

This is old thinking. With Uber-like services you don't have to hire drivers 8 hours at a time. Paying drivers when they aren't needed is very wasteful. That tax money would be better spent providing better ride services (e.g. flexible routes and schedules).

[supertrope]

One driver driving one passenger is inherently low capacity. It's taxi service. You pay more for taxi fare because it's door to door and capacity is far scarcer than bus/train seats.

Small vehicles decrease capacity of the public transit network and increase labor intensity. Good luck finding a CDL holder driver who will work as a "gig" worker. Vans are cheaper than $250K buses, but that means each bus that ever has more than a dozen riders at peak usage will require two drivers or even three to service. https://humantransit.org/2019/08/what-is-microtransit-for.ht...

[xnx]

> One driver driving one passenger is inherently low capacity.

Isn't capacity primarily about passenger-miles / time? Whatever vehicle size optimizes for this is probably better. During rush hours, it could definitely make sense to use big busses.

> You pay more for taxi fare because it's door to door and capacity is far scarcer than bus/train seats.

Hard to compare taxi fares to transit fares when transit fares do not fully pay for the service.

> Good luck finding a CDL holder driver who will work as a "gig" worker. Vans are cheaper than $250K buses

This is one of the strengths of these microtransit options, no specialty employees or vehicles.