That’s a really difficult problem to solve with the built environment being the way it is. Buses get the closest, but to make it usable at times other than rush hour, they have to run empty or nearly empty, which drives the cost very high (although this is often hidden by subsidies). The way to deal with low density transit is automation.

▲

toasty228 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Depends at the scale you're looking at. How much money is wasted by 30 people driving 30 cars when a bus could take them all? Taking into account car wear, gas, etc.

Low density public transport work very well in places where people simply can't afford personal vehicles, it's not a tech logical or financial problem at all, if anything it's cultural and mostly political

▲

goda90 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If the bus service is good and available, people will use it eventually including in off hours. Induced demand.

▲

devilsdata 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I can not imagine that the cost of busses can ever approach the cost of the equivalent amount of cars (for the same amount of passengers).

▲

Robotbeat 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It is, at least in a place like LA. Fares are like less than 10% the actual total cost of an average bus ride. https://www.reddit.com/r/LAMetro/comments/1orftnt/should_you...

Now if you’re ONLY serving high density and high passenger volume times, buses are incredible.

▲

devilsdata 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Is your point that busses aren't profitable? Why do they need to be?

I am sure if you did the math, having the occasional empty bus does not hold a candle to the amount of dead mass being dragged along in single-occupant cars.

The wear-and-tear on the road from the sheer volume of cars alone makes them cost more to us as a society than busses.

So regardless of density and passenger volume, busses are incredible.

	▲	kupfer 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's not that simple, road damage is famously non-linear in axle load: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
	▲	toast0 an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> The wear-and-tear on the road from the sheer volume of cars alone makes them cost more to us as a society than busses. That doesn't really math, because axle weight is a large factor in road wear. There's details and it doesn't always apply, but the commonly used rule of thumb is that "road wear increases in proportion to the fourth power of its axle load." If a transit bus weighs at least 25000 lbs and has two axles [2] and a F-150 has an average weight of 5000 lbs with two axles [3], you get a lot more road wear from putting a bunch of people on a bus compared to all of them driving their f-150s by themselves. The power rule says the wear from one bus is equivalent to 625 F-150s. Although if people rode around in classic Beetles (~ 2000 lbs), there'd be even less road wear, and things would be a lot groovier. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law [2] https://phoenixtransportationsf.com/how-much-does-a-bus-weig... [3] https://www.fordoffeasterville.com/2025-ford-f-150-weight-gu...
	▲	toasty228 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> Is your point that busses aren't profitable? Why do they need to be? Because late stage capitalism brain rot doesn't allow for nuanced things such as "public services". They'd rather have everyone spend 50k on a car and Xk per year on insurance and maintenance than $100 of their taxes going to public infrastructure