What uses will buses have in a world of driverless cars?

[PTR 444]

There have been numerous threads on how driverless vehicles will signal the end of local bus operations in the UK. While it’s inevitable that some bus use will be affected as more people switch to an autonomous car (the mode’s been in decline for decades anyway), I’m sure there will still be some relevance for buses in an autonomous world. For example:

• Private hire operations transporting a large number of people door to door (railway station to football stadium or business conference for example)
• A budget form of local travel, especially if fully driverless buses can significantly bring down fares
• Mobility for the elderly in towns and cities, with more round-the-houses minibus routes linking communities with their nearest transport hub
• Open top/sightseeing bus routes in tourist areas
• Routes created as a result of policies mandating high occupancy vehicles to reduce congestion

Can you think of any more?

Besides, I think where buses will suffer are the more rural areas, which hardly carry any passengers now and are only kept running by council subsidy. When cars and buses are driverless there’s not much need for a higher occupancy vehicle in those areas.

 

[farwest]

The roads will not be able to cope with loads of extra traffic. Buses will be needed even more.

 

[Titfield]

Driver less cars will in effect become taxis (albeit without a human driver). The unanswered question is what will the fares be? If the fares are comparable with bus fares then why go by bus but if they are significantly more expensive there will still be a demand for the lower cost transport that buses will offer. The fare differential will be the influencer of choice of mode.

 

[172007]

The roads will not be able to cope with loads of extra traffic. Buses will be needed even more.

Correct.
Everyone from 8 to death will use a single seat pod driverless car to go where they want to go. The pods won't be on the drive necessarily so will need to get to pickup point, journey then scoot off to park up or next collection. Pods will be everywhere and the road network won't cope. The number of journeys won't just double or treble.

The best example if driverless cars go to fully automated pods will be that every school kid will go to school in their own individual pod as parents to will think it safer than walking. Average senior school of 1500 kids and 80 teachers. Wow thats a twice a day rushour and a half.

 

[stuu]

Of course driverless buses are going to be orders of magnitude easier to achieve than driverless cars: fixed routes are far easier to cope with than every possible scenario which is what a true driverless car needs to be able to deal with. So potentially buses could be run a lot more frequently at lower costs than now, although you would need some serious monitoring to stop them turning into lawless zones

 

[PTR 444]

Of course driverless buses are going to be orders of magnitude easier to achieve than driverless cars: fixed routes are far easier to cope with than every possible scenario which is what a true driverless car needs to be able to deal with. So potentially buses could be run a lot more frequently at lower costs than now, although you would need some serious monitoring to stop them turning into lawless zones

Another question is whether the general public would accept travelling on a shared vehicle with no member of staff on board. You could resolve this by keeping a member of staff on board, but you still need to pay them a wage therefore you don’t save much compared to keeping them for a driving role.

 

[JKP]

It seems you are assuming that everybody will be happy travelling in a driverless car. I doubt that will be the case, certainly in the near future.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Some might consider going by bus even if they have a non-driverless car. I would feel safer in a bus!

I wonder how many will use a driverless taxi instead of a non-driverless taxi. I doubt it would be cheaper than bus but maybe it will be attractive.

I don't see many other bus or rail users going out and buying a driverless car. They would have bought a conventional car already. OK those who do not have a driving licence might be the easiest to attract - school kids, those who cannot drive and those who are banned.

 

[mangad]

So there was a town in Canada that got rid of public transport, and replaced with with Uber.

The Innisfil experiment: the town that replaced public transit with Uber

Ridership is high and there’s plenty of work for drivers, but success has come at a cost to this Ontario town

www.theguardian.com

The article above is quite detailed, but it was successful. Lots of people used it. But it was too successful. It began to cost more than the buses it had replaced. A LOT more.
Now I know Ubers aren't driverless, but there's obvious parallels. Trying to replace buses with lots of individuals in driverless cars may well go down very well. People will probably use it a lot. But the costs will rack up because of scale. Fifty people all getting driverless cars will cost more than the same fifty people getting on a bus. And, of course, they will take up a lot more road space.

It may well be in very rural areas where there's limited buses, driverless cars will be a solution. But for towns and cities, it's a non-starter.

 

[birchesgreen]

Might be feasible in places like California with huge wide roads but local roads in this country replacing a bus holding 30+ people with 30 separate driverless cars will cause chaos.

 

[Lucan]

replacing a bus holding 30+ people with 30 separate driverless cars will cause chaos.

Add to that the riderless cars. Probably over half the movements of driverless taxis will be without a rider while going to pick up the next fare or returning from the previous one. That is like driven taxis at present of course, but at present only a minority of people use taxis.

In addition to that, consider driverless cars that are privately owned. The owner who previously commuted by train from Harrow or Tunbridge Wells will be driven by their car into central London (for example) and then send the car home again to avoid the parking problem. When the time approaches to leave the office they will call it back again. This is as long as they can charge their electric car cheaply and there no tolls on actual road occupation, as now.

 

[birchesgreen]

Add to that the riderless cars. Probably over half the movements of driverless taxis will be without a rider while going to pick up the next fare or returning from the previous one. That is like driven taxis at present of course, but at present only a minority of people use taxis.

In addition to that, consider driverless cars that are privately owned. The owner who previously commuted by train from Harrow or Tunbridge Wells will be driven by their car into central London (for example) and then send the car home again to avoid the parking problem. When the time approaches to leave the office they will call it back again. This is as long as they can charge their electric car cheaply and there no tolls on actual road occupation, as now.

Yes the whole thing falls apart as soon as you give it any thought as to scale. I was watching a video yesterday talking about this in fact.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Of course this is assuming truly driverless cars actually do become a reality - which is not a guarantee right now. The current systems have so many issues that there are plenty of news stories about them being easily fooled by sign / road marking vandalism, about them actively killing their occupants and about them causing chaos in places they operate. The problems are so numerous that many of the current systems are essentially just enhanced cruise control. Even the systems that do claim to do more often have remote human operators for a decent proportion of their driving time. Sure these systems can be useful, but they are far far away from actual driverless systems that are able to operate everywhere a person can currently drive a regular car.

 

[Flying Snail]

Driverless cars are 10 years away, they have been 10 years away every year for more than 10 years.

 

[edwin_m]

Might be feasible in places like California with huge wide roads

Which from what I can tell are all too often choked with traffic. Classic problem of building more roads creating new traffic, so you need public transport (with appropriate priority measures in the case of buses) to break out of that spiral.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Which from what I can tell are all too often choked with traffic. Classic problem of building more roads creating new traffic, so you need public transport (with appropriate priority measures in the case of buses) to break out of that spiral.

This is how I see it. The idea of driverless cars is just more excuses to keep the car culture going.

 

[The exile]

Yes the whole thing falls apart as soon as you give it any thought as to scale. I was watching a video yesterday talking about this in fact.

Or indeed once all the various “non-standard” journeys are considered -particularly if the idea is that people don’t own the vehicle.

 

[birchesgreen]

Which from what I can tell are all too often choked with traffic. Classic problem of building more roads creating new traffic, so you need public transport (with appropriate priority measures in the case of buses) to break out of that spiral.

Interestingly, the driverless taxis in San Francisco are frequently causing traffic chaos.

 

[The exile]

Interestingly, the driverless taxis in San Francisco are frequently causing traffic chaos.

Of course they are. No sane “real world” person would ever have thought otherwise.

 

[Silent]

The roads will not be able to cope with loads of extra traffic. Buses will be needed even more.

I thought by the time driverless car tech is advanced the cars would know where the most and least traffic is and would take the route that usually less congested. We also would mostly stop owning cars, as the idea of what a car is will change, so maybe ride shares would become the norm? Being alone in a driverless car might be expensive for most? So buses may still be a norm? I think when driverless car tech is advanced, flying cars may become a bigger possibility though I don't know if it will happen.

Interestingly, the driverless taxis in San Francisco are frequently causing traffic chaos.

I would guess that's because most cars are still non-driverless, so there are differences in communication between driverless cars and driven cars that probably cause the traffic.

 

[birchesgreen]

I would guess that's because most cars are still non-driverless, so there are differences in communication between driverless cars and driven cars that probably cause the traffic.

No, from the videos of seen the taxis just seem to randomly stop in the middle of the road so i can't see it being other traffic - and even if so, they shouldn't be on the road if they can't cope with other users!

In one case a taxi stopped, wouldn't move, when a tech came to it the car "ran" away!

 

[HSTEd]

Which from what I can tell are all too often choked with traffic. Classic problem of building more roads creating new traffic, so you need public transport (with appropriate priority measures in the case of buses) to break out of that spiral.

The same argument also suggests that adding public transport capacity just creates more demand so doing anything to improve public transport to alleviate congestion or crowding is just as futile!

It only works if you assume that demand for travel is infinite (and in a finite population it can't be) and people being more mobile has no positive impact on the population, which is kind of a dodgy assumption to make.

EDIT:

On buses, I'd be more worried about what to do about ever-increasing labour costs and the terrible labour productivity imposed by the low average speed of bus services.

 

[Peter Sarf]

No, from the videos of seen the taxis just seem to randomly stop in the middle of the road so i can't see it being other traffic - and even if so, they shouldn't be on the road if they can't cope with other users!

In one case a taxi stopped, wouldn't move, when a tech came to it the car "ran" away!

My bold
Bit like mini cabs in London then .
When mini cabs started having LT totem symbols in their window then it became clear who the culprits of most of the bad driving were. Think double parking an empty space for instance and driving along the wrong side of the road to get to their fare.

 

[Silent]

No, from the videos of seen the taxis just seem to randomly stop in the middle of the road so i can't see it being other traffic - and even if so, they shouldn't be on the road if they can't cope with other users!

In one case a taxi stopped, wouldn't move, when a tech came to it the car "ran" away!

But computers are getting better at interacting with us especially with ai. Maybe realistically there is still a number of decades till cars can really become driverless.

 

[Surreyman]

Rural routes won't exist in 10 years time, 'supported' or tendered routes will also continue to wither away, part of an ongoing decline which has been going on for many decades and with the current dire state of public finances it won't make any difference which party is in power.
Urban buses do have a decent future, moving over to electric (or gas if they can make the sums add up).
Towns and cities which invest in bus lanes, pro-active traffic lights etc, decent bus stops with real time info will do well, also those areas which prioritise personal safety/security for passengers.
Driverless cars still have to be paid for, whether leased or owned, they will still breakdown from time to time and inevitably suffer occasional software issues.
I can see driverless cars being a success for taxi firms, particularly picking up drunks late at night
When I last worked, we speculated about future deliveries, no driver, just a teenage boy or girl on minimum wage to carry the stuff into the shop but will driverless cars stop on a yellow line or 'bend' rules?
We also need to remember that many bus passengers now are elderly using passes, or schoolchildren ditto who still need a bus.

 

[edwin_m]

I can see driverless cars being a success for taxi firms, particularly picking up drunks late at night

I see that as one of the reasons they won't be a success. With no driver, there is no deterrent to bad behaviour and it will be the next passenger who discovers the vehicle is in no fit state to carry them.

 

[Surreyman]

I see that as one of the reasons they won't be a success. With no driver, there is no deterrent to bad behaviour and it will be the next passenger who discovers the vehicle is in no fit state to carry them.

I disagree, driverless taxis would automatically be fitted with several cameras, when ordering on an app, (or by any other means)you effectively sign a legal agreement so that in the event of damage, littering from fast food, vomit, cig butts or drug paraphernalia, you are automatically surcharged say £100 for cleaning. Also the cameras could be used to assist Police actions in the case of drug taking or violent/sexual assault.
Badly behaved passengers would also be blacklisted from future travel.
I am aware that the law(s) around these issues are not straightforward and in some cases the taxi firm might want to bring a private legal action.
With no driver, there is no risk of the taxi driver being assaulted.
Actual drivers are likely to be in demand from the elderly/infirm, young mothers etc etc.

 

[edwin_m]

I disagree, driverless taxis would automatically be fitted with several cameras, when ordering on an app, (or by any other means)you effectively sign a legal agreement so that in the event of damage, littering from fast food, vomit, cig butts or drug paraphernalia, you are automatically surcharged say £100 for cleaning. Also the cameras could be used to assist Police actions in the case of drug taking or violent/sexual assault.
Badly behaved passengers would also be blacklisted from future travel.

There are the wealthy Bullingdon types who think paying for the damage they cause will make it all OK, and some who are probably so blind drunk they aren't deterred by consequences.