That sounds like a good idea/question, but a side question from me - driver salary is really the main cost? I'd imagine fleet depreciation to be the main (non-cash) expense.
I'm no expert, but it's what I heard. But back of the the envelope, a bus costs O($500k) and lasts O(20 years), but you have to pay for multiple FTE operators per bus. Obviously maintenance and fuel also cost money but not as much as a (typically unionized) operator.
If an autonomous bus costs twice as much I think it still wins out. Maybe you still need a conductor to make sure people pay and don't act antisocially but such a person can probably be much cheaper/less skilled.
>but not as much as a (typically unionized) operator.
Why do you need to specify the "unionized" drivers? Do they cost more? Why? because they are paid fair(like paid extra if they have to work on Christmas or extra hours)? Or maybe they union negotiated to keep the salary in sync with inflation?
Yes, because they get paid more compared to e.g. an Uber driver, and also there are typically things like minimum shift lengths and required breaks. It's not a bad thing, but helps explain why operator costs tend to be dominant.
It doesn't take that much skill to drive a bus. College kids and retirees do it for part time income. I'd think the conductor/security guard would be as expensive if not more expensive than the driver.
Fleet maintenance is also a huge fixed cost, and improvements to bus technology that reduce maintenance are a neutral impact when it comes to driver/driverless as options.
