4 ms·
> We also need competition in bus service, not government-run, subsidized monopolies. Then we'd see many more transportation options. No local transportation s
by 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 agohttp://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 agoPlease present an argument, not a link. This is hacker news, not reddit.
- stretchwithme 9y agoPoint 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.