3 ms·

Absolutely. Space on the street is a valuable, limited resource, especially at peak times. And it should be priced accordingly. We also need competition in b

Absolutely. Space on the street is a valuable, limited resource, especially at peak times. And it should be priced accordingly. We also need competition in bus service, not government-run, subsidized monopolies. Then we'd see many more transportation options. We should look at how these problems are solved in other countries. Or all of the innovation we had here in the US when cars first became practical, before the cab monopolies were established. While some regulations make sense, those that establish monopolies, fixed supplies, and shortages should be avoided. These inevitably lead to waste, corruption, more crime and terrible service.

mrbabbage 9y ago
> We also need competition in bus service, not government-run, subsidized monopolies. Then we'd see many more transportation options. No local transportation system in America covers its operating costs using fare revenue. Most local bus agencies in America only cover about 20% of opex with fares; the best agencies (e.g. BART) might get to 70%. This doesn't even consider capital costs. Good luck getting a private entity to run a charity service. Local transportation is not a profitable endeavor and never has been. > We should look at how these problems are solved in other countries. Hint: it's not because the great Euro and Asian cities have competition. Only a handful like Tokyo have competing systems.
- stretchwithme 9y ago
  http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mitchell-jitneys-uber-ride-share-20140713-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mitchell-jitneys-...
  - matchbok 9y ago
    Please present an argument, not a link. This is hacker news, not reddit.
    - stretchwithme 9y ago
      Point taken. My argument is that the US had plenty of competition in transportation before it was regulation squelched it. If people are making a living driving ONE person around, how is it that they would be unable to make money driving MULTIPLE people around? It certainly can become unprofitable if government decides to operate large inflexible vehicles that are often empty and that stop constantly. Or whose driver's compensation is not justified by the volume of customers served. You can take any ordinarily profitable enterprise and find ways to make it unprofitable. But you can only sustain that if you can subsidize it with revenues from other activities, like collecting taxes. Trying to compete with someone that doesn't need to make a profit is also very difficult.
so33 9y ago
There are a few cities in the world where public transportation is privately owned and operated. Those cities have so much density, most routes can turn a profit. Most cities do not have this luxury. Cities in Europe, for the most part, do just fine with public transit. It's all publicly-run. And they have solved the problem with a way that would be seemingly unacceptable in the US: Segregated rights-of-way for buses and trams, an extensive metro and regional rail network, and depending on the city, sometimes heavy subsidies. And that's fine, because if public transit is run as a public service, it's not all going to make money.
walshemj 9y ago
No you wont you will get cherry picked routes and in the uk the free bus pass for seniors and use of the same busses for transporting school kids really distorts bus service for other users

mrbabbage 9y ago

> We also need competition in bus service, not government-run, subsidized monopolies. Then we'd see many more transportation options. No local transportation system in America covers its operating costs using fare revenue. Most local bus agencies in America only cover about 20% of opex with fares; the best agencies (e.g. BART) might get to 70%. This doesn't even consider capital costs. Good luck getting a private entity to run a charity service. Local transportation is not a profitable endeavor and never has been. > We should look at how these problems are solved in other countries. Hint: it's not because the great Euro and Asian cities have competition. Only a handful like Tokyo have competing systems.

stretchwithme 9y ago
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mitchell-jitneys-uber-ride-share-20140713-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mitchell-jitneys-...
- matchbok 9y ago
  Please present an argument, not a link. This is hacker news, not reddit.
  - stretchwithme 9y ago
    Point taken. My argument is that the US had plenty of competition in transportation before it was regulation squelched it. If people are making a living driving ONE person around, how is it that they would be unable to make money driving MULTIPLE people around? It certainly can become unprofitable if government decides to operate large inflexible vehicles that are often empty and that stop constantly. Or whose driver's compensation is not justified by the volume of customers served. You can take any ordinarily profitable enterprise and find ways to make it unprofitable. But you can only sustain that if you can subsidize it with revenues from other activities, like collecting taxes. Trying to compete with someone that doesn't need to make a profit is also very difficult.

so33 9y ago

There are a few cities in the world where public transportation is privately owned and operated. Those cities have so much density, most routes can turn a profit. Most cities do not have this luxury. Cities in Europe, for the most part, do just fine with public transit. It's all publicly-run. And they have solved the problem with a way that would be seemingly unacceptable in the US: Segregated rights-of-way for buses and trams, an extensive metro and regional rail network, and depending on the city, sometimes heavy subsidies. And that's fine, because if public transit is run as a public service, it's not all going to make money.

walshemj 9y ago

No you wont you will get cherry picked routes and in the uk the free bus pass for seniors and use of the same busses for transporting school kids really distorts bus service for other users