Subways solve this problem by running every couple of minutes. Buses generally don't solve this problem well because traffic and alighting / loading delays cause them to bunch up. But on-demand self-driving cars can solve this problem, as long as there are enough of them close enough.
(It's also the problem Uber solved.)
One bus replaces probably 150 car trips a day (assuming it makes ~3 runs, partially full. If you assume similar capacity utilization on cars (3 passengers), it would take ~50 car trips to replace those 3 runs, effectively putting 17 cars on the road for every bus currently in operation.
* Short distance between stops (due to low housing density).
* Traffic due to lack of bus lanes.
* Long time spent at stops due to cash payments and/or single door entry, rather than proof of payment or tap on stations at every door, no cash allowed.
* Inaccurate/nonexistent realtime updates.
A bus every 30 minutes isn't a big deal compared to SF/Bay Area travel times, but only if I can rely on a timetable/GPS to arrive at the stop 2 minutes before departure and be confident with a scheduled arrival 2 minutes before my appointment.
Wait, this doesn't make sense. Lower density means shorter distances between stops?
No, lower density should mean longer distances between stops, because you will go for longer distances before another person wants to get on or off.
Higher density would mean shorter distances between stops because there will be more frequently people wanting to get on and off.
If anything, you have it backwards. In most of SF, places with high housing density (e.g. Van Ness) have their stops closer together than places with far lower density (e.g. Geary in the outer Richmond).
I suspect (but do not know for sure) that this is done on the theory that dense neighborhoods require more granular transit access.
Otoh, it replaces the latency and stress of rush hour.
This leads me to suspect that the stress of waiting for public transit is largely incidental and could be reduced by better station design, without having to make any (difficult, expensive) improvements to service frequency and reliability.
Similarly, in many transport corridors intercity rail runs several times an hour (not so much in the US) and shuttle flights run every hour or two. Which are also sufficient in those contexts, in that it becomes reasonable to show up at the station/airport without checking the timetable.
LOL! What magical fairly land is this?
Convincing local governments to allow more housing to be built, so as to solve the housing crisis? That's crazy talk!
Building self driving is an easy problem compared to the impossibility of THAT.
The problem is everyone else who votes against rezoning.
more housing = more residents = more local tax income
Google having full parking lots doesn’t harm Mountain View and Sunnyvale traffic as much as extra trips do.
I’d rather they get them working maximally safely in a confined environment than pretend to be universally safe when they’re obviously not.
That’s not intuitive to me. I don’t see why snow conditions would teach us about likely accidents in Pali Alto.
A lot of technology only exists because their original problem set was extreme in nature (e.g. things out of NASA or military research). I think a lot of "easier" problems in autonomous driving could benefit from a breakthrough solution that got discovered in the course of solving a harder problem.
The near team (in 1-2 years) goal should be getting 20, 50, 95% of their own employees off the personal cars for the daily commute.
Their parking lot should be empty after 2 years.