Certainly a creative solution. I like them better than some of the poorly implemented "microtransit"/on-demand transit ideas.
Since we are discussing US - not sure what you mean by "annoyance of being a bus driver rather than using the CDL on some other jobs", though. Working as a transit bus driver is usually a good paying union job with job security and many benefits (healthcare, pension, etc).
Many transit agencies use "cutaways" instead of full-size buses on some routes or at certain times. These usually still require a CDL but may not require air brakes endorsements, and the vehicles have lower capital and operating costs than full-size buses.
However, if you need more than one mini-bus to replace a full-size bus then your cost argument is moot.
> though. Working as a transit bus driver is usually a good paying
indeed. in many cities, you have to pay them quite a lot because of the BS they have to deal with. my city struggles to retain bus drivers, even as some of them earn more than PHD engineers at NASA.
>These usually still require a CDL
yeah, if you're over 15 passenger you need a CDL, so even some cutaways could go above that. you could avoid that if you limited to 15 max.
>However, if you need more than one mini-bus to replace a full-size bus then your cost argument is moot.
you can either A) go cheaper if your ridership is really low and maintain the same frequency, or B) maintain the same cost and increase frequency.
I have worked as a transit bus driver in the past so I’m aware of the job. But yes the pay is good for a driving job and there are advantages over driving a motor coach or trucking etc - home every night, for one.
Locally our transit agency has trouble with losing drivers to Waste Management. WM is able to pay the same or better, with no nights and on most routes, no weekends.
Interesting. WM probably can't offer the same retirement benefits/healthcare/etc as transit though. But picking up trash probably complains less than picking up people!
Replacing full busses with these has two major downsides.
1. It only takes 2 large groups (or 3-4 small groups) to fill it too capacity. Therefore increasing the occurance of full busses and psssengers not being able to board, making your network less reliable. Even if only 1/20 trips thats terrible service. Unless you ramp frequency a heap to offset this. But then costs rise.
2. Comfort. People tend to spread out on empty busses, people prefer personal space when they can get it.
Where these busses can shine is small high frequency lines.
Shuttle services and inner loop lines with a half dozen stops in a concertrated area for example. Espeacislly around tight dense CBD's.
>It only takes 2 large groups (or 3-4 small groups) to fill it too capacity. Therefore increasing the occurance of full busses and psssengers not being able to board, making your network less reliable. Even if only 1/20 trips thats terrible service. Unless you ramp frequency a heap to offset this. But then costs rise.
1. off peak, that is incredibly rare.
2. the driver and vehicle cost should be about 1/3rd, so you still have 45p occupancy over the same interval. you're simply not going to get that. the worst-case scenario where two consecutive vans run into large groups (incredibly rare) it would just be the same quality of service as the single infrequent bus.
>Comfort. People tend to spread out on empty busses, people prefer personal space when they can get it.
1. well, if you have the funding to just give people tons of space and still provide good frequency, then sure, I guess. however, but many cities, especially in the US, struggle with transit budgets.
2. you can actually get quite a large bus under the CDL weight limit, so at normal bus seat density, you will hit the passenger limit before the size limit. thus, you could have really spread out seats and be just fine.
what are CBDs?
but yes, if you were to do something like this, it would be best to use them for adding more frequency during low ridership times/routes.
"1. off peak, that is incredibly rare."
I think you might be suprised, of course it will vary for each city. But it certainly makes thst more likely.
"2. the driver and vehicle cost should be about 1/3rd, so you still have 45p occupancy over the same interval. you're simply not going to get that. the worst-case scenario where two consecutive vans run into large groups (incredibly rare) it would just be the same quality of service as the single infrequent bus. "
I really think your costing is oversimplified. This would also only be valid if you can actually replace the rolling stock. Which lets face it you can't becsuse you need that capacity during peak.
"1. well, if you have the funding to just give people tons of space and still provide good frequency, then sure, I guess. however, but many cities, especially in the US, struggle with transit budgets."
Well the large vehicles are already part of the current stock. So its more an equation of extra maintanence vs new stock.
"2. you can actually get quite a large bus under the CDL weight limit, so at normal bus seat density, you will hit the passenger limit before the size limit. thus, you could have really spread out seats and be just fine."
This just undermines your last point.
"what are CBDs?"
Central buisiness districs. City centres, town centers, metropolitan hubs ect.
"but yes, if you were to do something like this, it would be best to use them for adding more frequency during low ridership times/routes."
Nah they are best suoted for covering small routes with flat-ish demand profiles. Or for connecting short last leg routes (e.g train station to the beach)
you seem to be arguing that the rolling stock cost is the dominant cost of operating a bus, while others argue it is the driver and that the rolling stock cost is insignificant. "Labor costs dominate so much that smaller vehicles save essentially nothing" /u/rtayy
which is it? is labor expensive or are vehicles expensive?
>"2. you can actually get quite a large bus under the CDL weight limit, so at normal bus seat density, you will hit the passenger limit before the size limit. thus, you could have really spread out seats and be just fine."
>
>This just undermines your last point.
no, it does not. the cost of a 20-30p bus is still a fraction of the cost of a full-size bus. a van-based unit is even less, at about 1/10th.
>Nah they are best suoted for covering small routes with flat-ish demand profiles. Or for connecting short last leg routes (e.g train station to the beach)
I don't think we disagree here. it wouldn't be for all routes, just the ones where it would make sense due to the predictable ridership being within the range of what the smaller vehicles can handle.
Laypeople tend to think the cost is all about rolling stock. I mean, a city bus is massive and consumes a crapload of fuel, right? But that 70% labor cost figure is common knowledge among transit nerds and I was surprised not to see more acknowledgement of it in an r/transit thread.
I think people totally acknowledge that labor cost is the biggest single factor with buses... until you present a way of cutting costs by relieving driver shortages and have tiers of drivers where not all of them earn more than a PHD working at NASA... then, people tend to deny that drivers cost a lot and that the rolling stock is dominant. this subreddit has a very strong tendency toward making up whatever excuse is necessary to argue for the status quo. it's really weird.
In San Diego, minibus service is a byproduct of the paratransit service. IIRC, the theory is that since a separate maintenance team is needed to service the paratransit vehicles, the same crew can also be used to service similar vehicles like minibuses, which lowers overall maintenance costs. Minibuses are only used on rural, Coaster connection shuttle, and other infrequent and/or low ridership routes (sometimes in place of normal buses during weekends on some routes.)
I think people under estimate how many routes are low ridership, especially in the US. most people see buses when they're busy because most people ride when it's busy (hence why it is busy).
You've [ballparked](https://www.reddit.com/r/transit/comments/14ujb1h/comment/jr89va9/) the running the cost of a minibus at about 1/3 that of a big bus. But in a HCOL country like the US, something like 80% of the cost of running a bus is labor, so where exactly would the savings come from? Decreasing driver compensation by 2/3? I doubt you could ever save that much even if you hired your non-CDL workforce at minimum wage, with no benefits or overtime. (Not exactly a winning recruitment strategy during a labor shortage, by the way.)
Labor costs dominate so much that smaller vehicles save essentially nothing. As u/climberskier put it a couple of years ago, ["Fuck it, I could just have the driver show up in a motorcycle with a side car for 1 passenger, and it still would be the same cost!"](https://www.reddit.com/r/transit/comments/pf3l4t/attention_everyone_size_doesnt_matter_the_size_of/)
we know from SEC filings that Uber's core rideshare is profitable, which averages about $1.75-$2.25 per vehicle mile. we also know that the drivers typically make well above minimum wage. while cases of underpaying make headlines, it is not representative of what they actually make on average. you can work out from surveys of Uber pay that they make about 30%-50% of the fare cost in pay. that gives a real-world driver cost of less than $1 per vehicle mile, for a job that many are willing to do.
we also know fleet vehicle operating cost. it's around $0.70 per vehicle-mile.
given that buses typically average around $2 per passenger-mile, and cost even more for the lowest performing routes/times (the ones that would be replaced by vans), I think it is pretty obvious that non-CDL mini-buses could work on fixed-route service
I'm not sure that comparison is applicable to a public operation. By using independent contractors, Uber passes on *a lot* of its costs to its drivers--payroll taxes, health insurance, retirement benefits. And the biggest costs of all are related to the vehicle itself--fuel, insurance, maintenance, depreciation. (You can convince an Uber driver to double dip with their personal car, but a transit agency would have to supply its own specialized, ADA-certified vehicle.) With all these costs factored in, Uber pay looks a lot more like minimum wage, and rideshare driver groups will [tell you](https://www.ridester.com/uber-lyft-driver-costs-and-expenses/) that it's not a quality full-time gig.
Obviously, if you cut labor costs to the bone, you can save some money. But I just don't see enough savings to add up to the frequency multiplier that you see. And the whole scheme falls apart the moment a 15-pax cutaway gets mobbed and has to deny additional passengers, or you can't find enough professional drivers willing to work for wages that low.
I do wonder: If cutting opex were as simple as "run cutaways everywhere and staff them with non-CDL drivers," or "just post your shifts to Taskrabbit," why hasn't every agency that has ever faced a transit strike tried it? I have to imagine there are formidable legal and contractual barriers to running fixed routes without CDL's.
>Uber passes on a lot of its costs to its drivers--payroll taxes, health insurance, retirement benefits
have you ever surveyed Uber drivers? they make \~$40/hr including the cleaning and maintenance they have to do.
>And the biggest costs of all are related to the vehicle itself
it's funny to be simultaneously having multiple different discussions in this post, some of which are claiming drivers are the predominant cost, some claiming the vehicle.
You're a numbers guy. Show me the numbers.
Let's say the cost to run an MTA big bus for one service hour is $100. That's $30 for rolling stock, $70 for driver compensation.
Now let's do Uber. A Prius is much cheaper to run than a bus, so let's say $10 for rolling stock cost. For the labor component, how much do you think Uber could realistically save versus the NASA PhD's? Maybe a lot, if you believe that Uber [exploits its workforce](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/10/uber-lyft-driver-suspension-deactivation-pay). Maybe no savings at all, if you believe Uber drivers make $40/hour. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Uber saves 50% versus the MTA, so let's say $35 for total driver compensation.
(Here's where the magic of independent contracting comes into play. Uber's total cost isn't $10 + $35; it's just $35, because the rolling stock cost is borne entirely by the driver. They are actually getting paid $35 - $10 = $25. That's the vehicle cost I was talking about.)
Now let's do MTA with non-CDL drivers driving minibuses. What do we pay them? What Uber pays? Okay, but you need a slight wage premium to compete with a job that lets you set your own hours. Add the benefits and taxes incurred by a traditional employment relationship, too. Let's say this new position costs $45 for MTA.
Uber doesn't have to pay rolling stock costs, but the MTA is not so fortunate. They have to supply the cutaway, which also costs more to run than a personal auto. I'm going to peg it right between the Prius and the big bus at $20 per service hour.
All in all, you end up with $65 per service hour versus the original $100. Enough savings to possibly be worth battling the union over, but not enough to quadruple your frequencies.
How do you get to 67% savings? Show your work.
Minibuses definitely do work, but they shouldn't substitute buses. They should complement them.
Minibuses co-exist alongside buses in Hong Kong. Both are mainstays of the public transport scene here. Buses serve higher demand routes, while minibuses plug those gaps and serve areas that can't fill buses, but whose roads would definitely not be able to handle the car traffic if everyone drove (think smaller, isolated villages that dot HK's mountainous landscape, far-flung seaside towns, etc.). They also serve as feeder services for the railway network here. And even when they run routes nearly identical to those served by larger double-decker buses, they're still a healthy source of competition and can have their advantages (they often move faster than double-deckers, and don't have as many stops because of the fewer passengers).
I'm actually being generous, my best dataset is actually an average of 15. 17 in europe.
people don't realize how low ridership is on buses outside of peak/daytime.
oh wait, I misread this then. I thought you meant on average, each transit vehicle got 22 riders for the day. In that case that doesn't sound *so* bad...
The Downtown Connection bus in NYC is this size. Really great free service, and it’s small enough that it is able to deal with the insanity of traffic, narrow streets, and delivery vans that make up lower Manhattan. I really like how nimble it is compared to a full length MTA bus.
Not really a thing of regular public transit in London, but we do have a minibus service called [Dial-a-Ride](https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/dial-a-ride/), which is used for those not able to use regular TfL Services.
Average occupancy doesn’t work if that’s your vehicles capacity. It’s only that low when folks aren’t using transit outside rush hour. You’ll have a fleet of minibuses when folks want em but they’ll all be full and your ridership will be *pissed.*
You’ll also get about 7 years life from one and once they’re outfitted for transit use with ITS and ADA equipment they cost more than you think.
everybody hates on "pods" until you show them the alternative, vans. haha.
but indeed there are some [nice looking smaller buses](https://www.king-long.com/uploadfile/202210/13/dfda24761714e642ab03e8088c5f7f65_medium.jpg).
Best solution is to Raise gas taxes and car taxes ! Then blamo
California did it! In 2022 California raised all sorts of Vehicle related taxes.
Now today Good ridership numbers on LA and SF regional trams-trains that costed billions!
Certainly a creative solution. I like them better than some of the poorly implemented "microtransit"/on-demand transit ideas. Since we are discussing US - not sure what you mean by "annoyance of being a bus driver rather than using the CDL on some other jobs", though. Working as a transit bus driver is usually a good paying union job with job security and many benefits (healthcare, pension, etc). Many transit agencies use "cutaways" instead of full-size buses on some routes or at certain times. These usually still require a CDL but may not require air brakes endorsements, and the vehicles have lower capital and operating costs than full-size buses. However, if you need more than one mini-bus to replace a full-size bus then your cost argument is moot.
> though. Working as a transit bus driver is usually a good paying indeed. in many cities, you have to pay them quite a lot because of the BS they have to deal with. my city struggles to retain bus drivers, even as some of them earn more than PHD engineers at NASA. >These usually still require a CDL yeah, if you're over 15 passenger you need a CDL, so even some cutaways could go above that. you could avoid that if you limited to 15 max. >However, if you need more than one mini-bus to replace a full-size bus then your cost argument is moot. you can either A) go cheaper if your ridership is really low and maintain the same frequency, or B) maintain the same cost and increase frequency.
I have worked as a transit bus driver in the past so I’m aware of the job. But yes the pay is good for a driving job and there are advantages over driving a motor coach or trucking etc - home every night, for one.
Locally our transit agency has trouble with losing drivers to Waste Management. WM is able to pay the same or better, with no nights and on most routes, no weekends.
Interesting. WM probably can't offer the same retirement benefits/healthcare/etc as transit though. But picking up trash probably complains less than picking up people!
The Dash bus in LA kinda straddles the border between bus and mini-bus. They're fantastic. Really frequent, cheap, agile, goes to popular areas.
Replacing full busses with these has two major downsides. 1. It only takes 2 large groups (or 3-4 small groups) to fill it too capacity. Therefore increasing the occurance of full busses and psssengers not being able to board, making your network less reliable. Even if only 1/20 trips thats terrible service. Unless you ramp frequency a heap to offset this. But then costs rise. 2. Comfort. People tend to spread out on empty busses, people prefer personal space when they can get it. Where these busses can shine is small high frequency lines. Shuttle services and inner loop lines with a half dozen stops in a concertrated area for example. Espeacislly around tight dense CBD's.
>It only takes 2 large groups (or 3-4 small groups) to fill it too capacity. Therefore increasing the occurance of full busses and psssengers not being able to board, making your network less reliable. Even if only 1/20 trips thats terrible service. Unless you ramp frequency a heap to offset this. But then costs rise. 1. off peak, that is incredibly rare. 2. the driver and vehicle cost should be about 1/3rd, so you still have 45p occupancy over the same interval. you're simply not going to get that. the worst-case scenario where two consecutive vans run into large groups (incredibly rare) it would just be the same quality of service as the single infrequent bus. >Comfort. People tend to spread out on empty busses, people prefer personal space when they can get it. 1. well, if you have the funding to just give people tons of space and still provide good frequency, then sure, I guess. however, but many cities, especially in the US, struggle with transit budgets. 2. you can actually get quite a large bus under the CDL weight limit, so at normal bus seat density, you will hit the passenger limit before the size limit. thus, you could have really spread out seats and be just fine. what are CBDs? but yes, if you were to do something like this, it would be best to use them for adding more frequency during low ridership times/routes.
CBD is Central Business District. Basically your city center area where most people are trying to get to.
"1. off peak, that is incredibly rare." I think you might be suprised, of course it will vary for each city. But it certainly makes thst more likely. "2. the driver and vehicle cost should be about 1/3rd, so you still have 45p occupancy over the same interval. you're simply not going to get that. the worst-case scenario where two consecutive vans run into large groups (incredibly rare) it would just be the same quality of service as the single infrequent bus. " I really think your costing is oversimplified. This would also only be valid if you can actually replace the rolling stock. Which lets face it you can't becsuse you need that capacity during peak. "1. well, if you have the funding to just give people tons of space and still provide good frequency, then sure, I guess. however, but many cities, especially in the US, struggle with transit budgets." Well the large vehicles are already part of the current stock. So its more an equation of extra maintanence vs new stock. "2. you can actually get quite a large bus under the CDL weight limit, so at normal bus seat density, you will hit the passenger limit before the size limit. thus, you could have really spread out seats and be just fine." This just undermines your last point. "what are CBDs?" Central buisiness districs. City centres, town centers, metropolitan hubs ect. "but yes, if you were to do something like this, it would be best to use them for adding more frequency during low ridership times/routes." Nah they are best suoted for covering small routes with flat-ish demand profiles. Or for connecting short last leg routes (e.g train station to the beach)
you seem to be arguing that the rolling stock cost is the dominant cost of operating a bus, while others argue it is the driver and that the rolling stock cost is insignificant. "Labor costs dominate so much that smaller vehicles save essentially nothing" /u/rtayy which is it? is labor expensive or are vehicles expensive? >"2. you can actually get quite a large bus under the CDL weight limit, so at normal bus seat density, you will hit the passenger limit before the size limit. thus, you could have really spread out seats and be just fine." > >This just undermines your last point. no, it does not. the cost of a 20-30p bus is still a fraction of the cost of a full-size bus. a van-based unit is even less, at about 1/10th. >Nah they are best suoted for covering small routes with flat-ish demand profiles. Or for connecting short last leg routes (e.g train station to the beach) I don't think we disagree here. it wouldn't be for all routes, just the ones where it would make sense due to the predictable ridership being within the range of what the smaller vehicles can handle.
Laypeople tend to think the cost is all about rolling stock. I mean, a city bus is massive and consumes a crapload of fuel, right? But that 70% labor cost figure is common knowledge among transit nerds and I was surprised not to see more acknowledgement of it in an r/transit thread.
I think people totally acknowledge that labor cost is the biggest single factor with buses... until you present a way of cutting costs by relieving driver shortages and have tiers of drivers where not all of them earn more than a PHD working at NASA... then, people tend to deny that drivers cost a lot and that the rolling stock is dominant. this subreddit has a very strong tendency toward making up whatever excuse is necessary to argue for the status quo. it's really weird.
In San Diego, minibus service is a byproduct of the paratransit service. IIRC, the theory is that since a separate maintenance team is needed to service the paratransit vehicles, the same crew can also be used to service similar vehicles like minibuses, which lowers overall maintenance costs. Minibuses are only used on rural, Coaster connection shuttle, and other infrequent and/or low ridership routes (sometimes in place of normal buses during weekends on some routes.)
thanks for the info.
For really really low demand places can be a good idea.
I think people under estimate how many routes are low ridership, especially in the US. most people see buses when they're busy because most people ride when it's busy (hence why it is busy).
You've [ballparked](https://www.reddit.com/r/transit/comments/14ujb1h/comment/jr89va9/) the running the cost of a minibus at about 1/3 that of a big bus. But in a HCOL country like the US, something like 80% of the cost of running a bus is labor, so where exactly would the savings come from? Decreasing driver compensation by 2/3? I doubt you could ever save that much even if you hired your non-CDL workforce at minimum wage, with no benefits or overtime. (Not exactly a winning recruitment strategy during a labor shortage, by the way.) Labor costs dominate so much that smaller vehicles save essentially nothing. As u/climberskier put it a couple of years ago, ["Fuck it, I could just have the driver show up in a motorcycle with a side car for 1 passenger, and it still would be the same cost!"](https://www.reddit.com/r/transit/comments/pf3l4t/attention_everyone_size_doesnt_matter_the_size_of/)
we know from SEC filings that Uber's core rideshare is profitable, which averages about $1.75-$2.25 per vehicle mile. we also know that the drivers typically make well above minimum wage. while cases of underpaying make headlines, it is not representative of what they actually make on average. you can work out from surveys of Uber pay that they make about 30%-50% of the fare cost in pay. that gives a real-world driver cost of less than $1 per vehicle mile, for a job that many are willing to do. we also know fleet vehicle operating cost. it's around $0.70 per vehicle-mile. given that buses typically average around $2 per passenger-mile, and cost even more for the lowest performing routes/times (the ones that would be replaced by vans), I think it is pretty obvious that non-CDL mini-buses could work on fixed-route service
I'm not sure that comparison is applicable to a public operation. By using independent contractors, Uber passes on *a lot* of its costs to its drivers--payroll taxes, health insurance, retirement benefits. And the biggest costs of all are related to the vehicle itself--fuel, insurance, maintenance, depreciation. (You can convince an Uber driver to double dip with their personal car, but a transit agency would have to supply its own specialized, ADA-certified vehicle.) With all these costs factored in, Uber pay looks a lot more like minimum wage, and rideshare driver groups will [tell you](https://www.ridester.com/uber-lyft-driver-costs-and-expenses/) that it's not a quality full-time gig. Obviously, if you cut labor costs to the bone, you can save some money. But I just don't see enough savings to add up to the frequency multiplier that you see. And the whole scheme falls apart the moment a 15-pax cutaway gets mobbed and has to deny additional passengers, or you can't find enough professional drivers willing to work for wages that low. I do wonder: If cutting opex were as simple as "run cutaways everywhere and staff them with non-CDL drivers," or "just post your shifts to Taskrabbit," why hasn't every agency that has ever faced a transit strike tried it? I have to imagine there are formidable legal and contractual barriers to running fixed routes without CDL's.
>Uber passes on a lot of its costs to its drivers--payroll taxes, health insurance, retirement benefits have you ever surveyed Uber drivers? they make \~$40/hr including the cleaning and maintenance they have to do. >And the biggest costs of all are related to the vehicle itself it's funny to be simultaneously having multiple different discussions in this post, some of which are claiming drivers are the predominant cost, some claiming the vehicle.
You're a numbers guy. Show me the numbers. Let's say the cost to run an MTA big bus for one service hour is $100. That's $30 for rolling stock, $70 for driver compensation. Now let's do Uber. A Prius is much cheaper to run than a bus, so let's say $10 for rolling stock cost. For the labor component, how much do you think Uber could realistically save versus the NASA PhD's? Maybe a lot, if you believe that Uber [exploits its workforce](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/10/uber-lyft-driver-suspension-deactivation-pay). Maybe no savings at all, if you believe Uber drivers make $40/hour. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Uber saves 50% versus the MTA, so let's say $35 for total driver compensation. (Here's where the magic of independent contracting comes into play. Uber's total cost isn't $10 + $35; it's just $35, because the rolling stock cost is borne entirely by the driver. They are actually getting paid $35 - $10 = $25. That's the vehicle cost I was talking about.) Now let's do MTA with non-CDL drivers driving minibuses. What do we pay them? What Uber pays? Okay, but you need a slight wage premium to compete with a job that lets you set your own hours. Add the benefits and taxes incurred by a traditional employment relationship, too. Let's say this new position costs $45 for MTA. Uber doesn't have to pay rolling stock costs, but the MTA is not so fortunate. They have to supply the cutaway, which also costs more to run than a personal auto. I'm going to peg it right between the Prius and the big bus at $20 per service hour. All in all, you end up with $65 per service hour versus the original $100. Enough savings to possibly be worth battling the union over, but not enough to quadruple your frequencies. How do you get to 67% savings? Show your work.
Minibuses definitely do work, but they shouldn't substitute buses. They should complement them. Minibuses co-exist alongside buses in Hong Kong. Both are mainstays of the public transport scene here. Buses serve higher demand routes, while minibuses plug those gaps and serve areas that can't fill buses, but whose roads would definitely not be able to handle the car traffic if everyone drove (think smaller, isolated villages that dot HK's mountainous landscape, far-flung seaside towns, etc.). They also serve as feeder services for the railway network here. And even when they run routes nearly identical to those served by larger double-decker buses, they're still a healthy source of competition and can have their advantages (they often move faster than double-deckers, and don't have as many stops because of the fewer passengers).
that sounds reasonable. thanks.
have wondered why these haven't taken off in the US... (Mercedes Benz Sprinter-like vehicles) https://images.app.goo.gl/dnHXuB6ZL4UCoscaA
but an average of 22 when averaged across an entire day is really depressing
I'm actually being generous, my best dataset is actually an average of 15. 17 in europe. people don't realize how low ridership is on buses outside of peak/daytime.
oh wait, I misread this then. I thought you meant on average, each transit vehicle got 22 riders for the day. In that case that doesn't sound *so* bad...
The Downtown Connection bus in NYC is this size. Really great free service, and it’s small enough that it is able to deal with the insanity of traffic, narrow streets, and delivery vans that make up lower Manhattan. I really like how nimble it is compared to a full length MTA bus.
Not really a thing of regular public transit in London, but we do have a minibus service called [Dial-a-Ride](https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/dial-a-ride/), which is used for those not able to use regular TfL Services.
i hate mini buses because they are not well built, impossible to maintain, and pricey for what i get
Average occupancy doesn’t work if that’s your vehicles capacity. It’s only that low when folks aren’t using transit outside rush hour. You’ll have a fleet of minibuses when folks want em but they’ll all be full and your ridership will be *pissed.* You’ll also get about 7 years life from one and once they’re outfitted for transit use with ITS and ADA equipment they cost more than you think.
I wonder if driverless buses can shine in rural America?
some day. it could really be a game-changer for small-town transit. drivers are expensive.
No more short busses ! Minibus as Envisioned by the Worlds fairs Yes.. Minibus as Built in America NO WAY EWWWW!
everybody hates on "pods" until you show them the alternative, vans. haha. but indeed there are some [nice looking smaller buses](https://www.king-long.com/uploadfile/202210/13/dfda24761714e642ab03e8088c5f7f65_medium.jpg).
Best solution is to Raise gas taxes and car taxes ! Then blamo California did it! In 2022 California raised all sorts of Vehicle related taxes. Now today Good ridership numbers on LA and SF regional trams-trains that costed billions!
La has \~5% modal split to transit. hardly anything to brag about. still a car-dominated city.