I wonder if something like this could improve the economics of public transport though. Passengers do the bulk of their travel on the well used train line, and then the last part of their trip is covered by waymo which could be more cost effective than running mostly empty busses.

▲

Arkhaine_kupo 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> unning mostly empty busses.

I always like being the person that points out that cars have on avg 1.5 passangers.

Meaning a bus (avg size of 2 medium cars) with just 4 people is already a better use of space on the road.

So while well utilised infrastructure might look prettier, the current misuse of infra is so vast that even minor use of public transit would already bring benefits.

	▲	ggreer 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Cost per passenger mile for a bus containing 4 people is much higher than for 4 cars, and since road wear scales with the 4th power of axle loading, a bus causes about 1,000x more damage to the road than a car. It seems like the best solution would be to implement registration fees to offset externalities like pollution and road wear, and have congestion fees for when the roads are busy (including for vehicles such as busses). Then let the price signal decide the optimal mix of vehicles on the road. I think if such a system were implemented, the biggest change in behavior would be people taking fewer car trips during peak traffic hours.

▲

tristanj 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The best formula for public transit is the Rail plus Property business model. In Hong Kong, the MTR Corporation buys up land adjacent to a planned future station, then builds the station afterwards. Then makes money from renting out the properties adjacent to the station.

JR East in Japan operates in the same way: it makes the majority of its profit from the real estate, malls, and hotels it operates adjacent to its train stations.

▲

mitxela 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't like having more feudalism though. One company owning all the good land - yikes!

▲

Uke 5 hours ago | parent [-]

The government should own it. All infrastructure like that should be in a nations hand.

▲

mcmcmc 3 hours ago | parent [-]

And then the government gets to decide who can lease that prime real estate next to the station? Sure, that won’t have any problems with corruption

	▲	ihsw 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

LikesPwsh 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No need to give distant examples - the US train boom used the same strategy.

▲

threetonesun 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Did it? I always assumed the US train boom aligned with shipping companies more than land at the destinations, which is why even today cargo gets priority over Amtrak.

	▲	vel0city an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Outside of the Eastern part of the US, the railroad land grant programs were a major part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_land_grants_in_the_Un... This is a part of why there were so many tiny little towns out West which were essentially just a railroad stop and a few buildings.

▲

intrasight 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sound Transit still uses this strategy in Seattle region.

	▲	Schiendelman 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They really don't. They don't build residential or commercial property.

▲

Gigachad 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sure, that might be the optimal strategy. But to fix what already exists, using self driving cars to feed in to the existing network could work.

Especially if the Waymo data feeds back to the government to plan scheduled PT on the most popular routes.

▲

Vinnl 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is why the main train company in the Netherlands has dirt cheap bike rentals at most train stations. Saves a bunch of last-mile headaches, as a traveller.

▲

simiones 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The problem is that personal vehicles inevitably leads to unsustainable traffic. Now, for low traffic areas, driverless cars might be an acceptable solution. But for busy areas, the geometry of transporting 1M people in cars vs buses is simply inescapable.

	▲	skybrian 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This is assuming all or nothing. More likely they will co-exist. There are good reasons to have choices. Driverless cars will make more sense if you have a lot of luggage or other cargo to schlep. Elderly people might find it easier. There will be routes that are awkward by bus. Also driverless vans might make sense on some routes. It will help if incentives encourage the use of whatever is more efficient.
	▲	Gigachad 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		What they seem to be designing around here is that you take a self driving car through the low density last mile and then a train through the majority of the route. If there was traffic along the last mile then it would be a good candidate for a regularly scheduled bus route. But for many areas there isn’t really traffic and not enough trips to jusitify all the bus routes it would take to fully cover the area. And yes this is all a result of atrocious urban planning, but as a way to fix what already exists it seems promising.

▲

ButlerianJihad 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Taxis are not efficient or cost-effective for short trips, so they’re not an ideal last-mile solution. I’d rather rent a scooter, personally.

However, if I need to make an appointment on time, or just reduce morning hassles, I take a Waymo, but afterwards, I may be inclined to take public transit in the return direction. Same distance, similar route, but distinct criteria for budgeting time, money, and mental health.