12 ms·

Makes sense and I'm a big fan. The only worry I have are a lack of market forces. How do five bussing companies compete if there's no revenue model. I wonder ho

Makes sense and I'm a big fan. The only worry I have are a lack of market forces. How do five bussing companies compete if there's no revenue model. I wonder how they tackled that. For example it may make sense to charge more for luxurious buses, or for a buses that drive on a dedicated lane for which they pay a more expensive license but are faster, or buses that offer wifi, or buses that come by every five minutes, or buses that drive at 3am. These all have fundamentally different cost components. Does the government pay for it all, allowing bus companies to inflate prices? Are there caps? If so, on what basis? And how does pricing work in a low-competition area like a subway operator with a 30y license, and government paying for it all? Again, I'm a big fan and we need to move this forward. But I'm interested in what system they (and other cities that experiment with this) put in place to manage it all. Either way, can't wait to see this arrive in my city. Working remotely, strong local walkable communities, ubiquitous public transport and automated ridesharing are strong candidates for the future, all of it electric and low-sound. That should increase traffic density, clean up cities from sound and pollution, make traffic safer and cheaper. edit: another issue that comes up is demand-control. For example I currently have a 60-70% discount subscription but only if I travel outside of peak hours. That absolutely induces me to travel differently, e.g. leave home earlier or stay a bit longer at work or uni until I get my discount. Free public transport removes that instrument. There's a lot of talk nowadays about trying to change the 9 to 5 model to one that's spread out more. e.g. universities having an 11 to 7 model, some companies going 10 to 6. Part of that story is traffic management, and free public traffic throws out this instrument. It may also disincentivize cycling, to a small extent walking, and perhaps most importantly, wanting to live as close to the 'rest of the day' (work, school, friends) as possible to reduce costs.

hndamien 8y ago
Don't forget electric scooters!
- IkmoIkmo 8y ago
  Yup, will definitely be a big part of the story! Not sure I'm a big fan myself. They sort of sit between bicycles and electric mini cars. [0] The cars are safer and allow easy multi-passengers, groceries, long-distance, all weather conditions, intercity travel. Bicycles are cheap, good for your health, nimble, safe on dedicated cycling infrastructure (see the Netherlands). Scooters take the best but also the worst from both. They're low-effort and relatively high-speed compared to bicycles, but nimble and relatively cheap compared to cars. But they're also relatively expensive compared to bicycles, have poor weather conditions of bicycles and are relatively unsafe and can't do intercity trips or grocery runs as easily as cars. They also aren't really suited for automation, and I feel they're less suited for ridesharing, but it's not easy to identify exactly why that is. I kind of feel every scooter ride is better off either as a bicycle ride or car ride, assuming you have these ubiquitous self-driving car2go 'travel pods' you could call em, and assuming you have nice cycling infrastructure. (I have a very European/Dutch perspective on this, outside cyclist-friendly cities I'd much rather have an electric scooter. But as a city I'd rather promote different infrastructure choices than scooters.) [0] https://www.car2go.com/media/data/germany/stuttgart/stuttgart-parking_492x20.jpg https://www.car2go.com/media/data/germany/stuttgart/stuttgar...
  - hndamien 8y ago
    I think we are talking different scooters, I'm not talking about moped. I' talking like Xiaomi, Ninebot, e-Micro. Cheaper than bikes, low effort, high speed, nimble, shopping limited to a back pack, bad in weather. Less weight, less space and less dangerous than bikes.
    - IkmoIkmo 8y ago
      Ah yeah, misunderstood. It's quite interesting, I grew up in a cycling city/country. Sometimes we see reports of my countrymen going abroad to consult other cities in the US, Africa, Asia etc to go cyclist-first, and a key issue pops up is that of convincing people on the image aspects I never considered. i.e., jumping on a bicycle in a place like Cairo just means you're poor and low-class and a self-respecting salaried person wouldn't do it. I always understood that even though I never experienced any such thoughts myself due to growing up in a cyclist culture. I feel a bit like that with scooters. I mean I'm young, a student, I'd ride them. But as silly and self conscious as it sounds, I probably wouldn't in my 30s, 40s or 50s. I wouldn't take one to work and I'd feel weird about showing up at my gf or friends on one or walking around with a folded one. I now know what it feels like when people say these things about cyclists. It's hard for me to shape an opinion on adoption. Is it one of those things where if the infrastructure etc is good enough, everyone will do it. (e.g. cycling in Amsterdam, all ages, genders, ethnicities and classes cycle, although there is a bit of an ethnic divide). Or if it's one of those things where generally 30+ year olds will just never use scooters in substantial numbers in most countries.
    - walshemj 8y ago
      I would have said they are less stable and more likely to crash on hitting a pot hole. A simple look at the geometry of a scooter (the small wheeled kids type not a vespa or c90) vs a bike will tell you that. Let a lone the better and safer breaking you have on a bike vs an electric scooter
      - hndamien 8y ago
        You'd be surprised on the breaking. Because of the low mass and ability to jump off and put your feet down you can stop quite quickly. Potholes on the other hand are more challenging than a bike, so you need to watch. That said, your top speed is significantly less than a bike, so its less of an issue.
- hk__2 8y ago
  It’d be great if we could forget them, actually. Paris is filled with them; they take space everywhere and a lot of people don’t drive properly because you don’t need a licence. A lot of buildings have spaces for bikes, but scooters must be left in the streets. They damage sidewalks they’re (illegally) left on due to a high weight on a small surface.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    They damage sidewalks they’re (illegally) left on due to a high weight on a small surface. That sounds suspect. Taking the example of a model used by one of the rent service in Paris, the Gogoro Smartscooter, that weighs 122Kg (incl. batteries), or 61Kg/tire. In comparison, a car like the Renault Zoe weighs almost 1500Kg, or 375Kg/tire. I know that bike tires are skinnier, but is it really enough to make more damage considering the weight differences?
    - Lukas_Skywalker 8y ago
      I think the issue are not the tires but the kickstand, which i have seen sinking into the tarmac on sunny days even on light bicycles.
      - tinus_hn 8y ago
        If you’re worried about a 122 kg bike sinking into the tarmac, better get started banning fat women wearing high heels.
        hk__2 8y ago
        > If you’re worried about a 122 kg bike sinking into the tarmac, better get started banning fat women wearing high heels. Fat women weiring high heels usually don’t stand on one foot at the same place for a couple of days.
    - yardie 8y ago
      Yes. The sidewalks are asphalt. Which while it does have a viscosity approaching solid it is still liquid. A motorbike left in the same spot for weeks and months at a time will leave a dent in the sidewalk.
furiens 8y ago
Public transport in a lot of Europe is publicly owned/run. Standards aren't maintained by market competition, but by politics.
- Phenomenit 8y ago
  I don't know about the rest of European countries but in Sweden the regional governments purchase the service from private companies for a fixed price over a 4 year contract. Every time the contract is up for renewal they ask for bids from all eligible companies so there is competition to place the lowest price based on requirements.
  - Broken_Hippo 8y ago
    From what I can tell, something similar happens in Norway. If I recall correctly, the city busses, airport transportation busses, and the long-distance busses are different companies (or at least theoretically can be). The taxis are another company altogether.
    - varjag 8y ago
      True, but it gradually consolidates with time. There used to be several city bus companies here in Bergen, then just two, then they merged into one. Municipality was major stakeholder in both and encouraged the merger. City tram is a separate company but also owned by the municipality. Taxis are a different story, most of them are private franchizes and it's working pretty well. Part of the reason ridesharing services were unable to gain any foothold here I believe.
  - amaccuish 8y ago
    We have this in the UK, at least for trains. Companies just end up bidding the lowest, knowing there's no way they can provide a reasonable service at that price. They then cut back on trains and quality, and eventually the contracts are cancelled.
    - walshemj 8y ago
jacquesm 8y ago
> How do five bussing companies compete if there's no revenue model. Why would they need five bussing companies when one suffices? They might not even need the one, the government could run it.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Because then there would be no competition, and bus drivers would clock out early leaving people stranded with no repercussions. As someone living in America I can’t even imagine what it’s like to live somewhere you can trust the government to run something like public transit. This is the on time performance of the Amtrak I’d take to work if it was ever on time: https://juckins.net/amtrak_status/archive/html/history.php?train_num=111&station=Ncr&date_start=04%2F19%2F2018&date_end=05%2F19%2F2018&df2=1&df3=1&df4=1&df5=1&df6=1&sort=schDp&sort_dir=DESC&co=gt&limit_mins=&dfon=1 https://juckins.net/amtrak_status/archive/html/history.php?t....
  - 0x4f3759df 8y ago
    Amtrak doesn't own the rails, so the delays are not their fault (freight gets priority), but I would hesitate to take Amtrak because of asset forfeiture. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/how-the-dea-harasses-amtrak-passengers/393230/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/how-the...
    - rayiner 8y ago
      Amtrak owns the rails on this segment (Boston to DC).
      - martinald 8y ago
        There's also MARC and Washington Metro service from that station. Is that also as unreliable as Amtrak? Why would you just choose to take Amtrak to DC when you have two better options there? The delays there are poor but train 111 departs from NY so has a long time to get delayed en route to that station. It's not a classic example of a commuter train.
the_mitsuhiko 8y ago
> For example it may make sense to charge more for luxurious buses Which transit system with a subscription model does that? We have a year ticket in Vienna and since that is a flatrate you can already not do that.
- tinus_hn 8y ago
  Don’t most countries have first class and second class train service while they also have flat rate subscriptions? The subscription for first class is just more expensive.
  - tonfa 8y ago
    Here we're talking about urban transportation, it's fairly rare to have different class of service.
- pandem 8y ago
  Dubai has first class in the metro. You can either buy a first or second class pass.
- Mediterraneo10 8y ago
  Cape Town has first-class and second-class carriages in its municipal rail.
pjc50 8y ago
Even in most places that have private public transport, either there is a local monopoly or near monopoly. It's very rare to be able to pick which carrier you want for a particular route.
- the_mitsuhiko 8y ago
  And the places where you can pick your carrier are typically also the ones where people complain about the ticketing complexities.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    People who use choice to their advantage like the competition. Lazy people don't. That's fine, until the Lazy people conspire to take away the choice from the rest of us. In the UK, we have people complaining about the price of power, however all you have to do is visit a site like uswitch.com, put in your details, and save hundreds, yet millions of people haven't done that, instead spending their energy complaining about the prices. The same with transport -- there's half a dozen ways to travel from say Edinburgh to London, including Planes, Train (multiple operators), Car, Taxi and Coaches. They all have pros and cons. But because people can't be bothered to either look up different options themselves, or go somewhere like trainsplit.com, there is a lot of pressure to "remove loopholes" like break of journey, split ticketing, slower but cheaper trains, etc, meaning those of us who do travel cheaply will lose out, because a few selfish lazy people can't be bothered to visit a website.
    - DanBC 8y ago
      > But because people can't be bothered to either look up different options themselves, or go somewhere like trainsplit.com, there is a lot of pressure to "remove loopholes" like break of journey, split ticketing, slower but cheaper trains, etc, meaning those of us who do travel cheaply will lose out, because a few selfish lazy people can't be bothered to visit a website No. When you're planning a journey from London to Edinburgh you should be able to go to the national rail journey planner and get the cheapest ticket, the shortest travel time, and then first class options on top. http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/ http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/ You shouldn't need to go to a separate website to include weird options like split tickets, broken journeys, or alternate routes. These should all be built into the system. The reason these weird options exist is because the UK train ticketing system is so stupidly complicated.
Broken_Hippo 8y ago
As far as odd times (3am, for example) and odd locations: Yes, the government should include these. I've worked many jobs that would fall outside of normal route times at night (when I've had access to busses, that is). Weekends, late nights, early starts. These jobs range from nurses aides to pharmacy workers to fast food to retail to factory work. Many are low-paying, but some aren't. If people cannot get to and from their jobs, especially folks working low-paying jobs, in a timely manner, it works against the goals of public transport. Now, there are other good points to having odd hours: Getting drunk folks home, enjoyment of city life when city life is happening, and so on. As far as the competing companies, they probably would bid to run the bus system in an area for x years. Overlap might be an issue otherwise.
- jimnotgym 8y ago
  More than that, I have a member of staff that can only work 9-5 because those are the only hours that the bus routes service. They really want to start earlier and finish earlier but can't. More out of hours services would allow people more scope to work different hours and travel off peak.
- dzhiurgis 8y ago
  I believe such service should be bookable, ala Uber pool. Just running buses empty isn't smart. You'd be excluding few percent who still can't or wouldn't own a smartphone tho.
baby 8y ago
You take a capitalist point of view. But the problem could be approached by having the government pay for it and avoid transport competing in a city that is already narrow in space.
v2ikesibul 8y ago
There's a single company running the routes and it's owned by the city: http://www.tallinnlt.ee/en/about-the-company/about-tallinna-linnatranspordi-as/ http://www.tallinnlt.ee/en/about-the-company/about-tallinna-...
jdietrich 8y ago
Buses are a hard problem. In the UK, most of the bus network was in public ownership until the 1980s. The Thatcher government deregulated the bus industry, allowing any operator to run bus services and set their own routes and timetables. This greatly increased the level of competition on popular and profitable routes, but it also created the problem of cherry-picking. The new private operators didn't bother with unprofitable but socially-valuable routes, which local governments felt obliged to serve or subsidise. The most profitable routes often became massively oversaturated, with competing operators engaging in "bus wars" in an attempt to dominate that route and force out the other operators. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_deregulation_in_Great_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_deregulation_in_Great_Brit...
- Tuna-Fish 8y ago
  > The new private operators didn't bother with unprofitable but socially-valuable routes, which local governments felt obliged to serve or subsidise. That's exactly how it should be. A lot of people have the idea that bus operators should be forced to drive the unprofitable routes in order to be allowed to drive the profitable ones. This would work if buses were literally the only way to get around. Since they are not, what it does is drive up the cost of public transport and make it less appealing. In Finland, it eventually caused the prices to rise so high, that it was generally cheaper to drive. This is socially disastrous. If there is a route that is not profitable to run, you should not expect a company to run it. The free market should manage the profitable routes, and drive down the prices as low as they can go. Any socially valuable routes on top of those should be subsidized out of the taxes of the people they provide value to.
  - TulliusCicero 8y ago
    The thing is, private transit has an incentive to go anywhere there's sufficient density of people. If buses don't want to go somewhere, it's probably because there aren't enough people to justify it there, which can be solved with zoning. Sometimes there are other issues too, like too much crime, but even then there's still something for the government to solve that would make it profitable for private transit.
notahacker 8y ago
The counter argument is that removing travel costs makes other market forces (competition in shopping, accommodation and employment) more active at the low end where travel costs matter more (and travel time less)
CalRobert 8y ago
I support this too. Cars are death to cities. But your points are valid. One approach would be the good old market. Give people x amount to spend on transport and let them decide how to use it. When I had parking cashout in Santa Monica early in my career I loved the extra $2500 a month in my paycheck, and starting my day with a bike ride. Of course, this only works if, every road is tolled high enough to account for the negative externalities of driving (pollution, people killed while walking, cycling, motorcycling, etc., noise, the end of the North Atlantic Meridional Overturning circulation causing northern Europe to be nearly uninhabitable in winter.. so on and so forth), and of course, to build/maintain/police it.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  Sorry - that's $2500 a year, of course.
- dba7dba 8y ago
  I agree that cars are not good for cities. When I was in S. Korea few years ago, I got to visit a newer apartment complex, with dozens of 20 - 30 stories tall apartment buildings. One important feature the builder/architect added is underground parking for all cars of visitors/residents. The entrance to the parking lot is right next to the street. There are roads within the complex for Fire/emergency/moving-trucks, but no other cars are allowed onto the ground of the complex. So there are no cars driving around within the complex. Not having to worry about dodging cars or dealing with car-noise/engine-exhaust-smell all combined to make the quality of life so much better. With some grass and greenery planted, walking within the complex felt like walking on a hiking trail. And this is in the of a huge apartment complex with thousands of units.
tejasmanohar 8y ago
Maybe it would be better if the government gave everyone $XX/mo transit credit so the market forces remain intact. Obviously, the downside is it may no longer be free for everyone, but maybe it’s a good trade off to avoid complacency
simonebrunozzi 8y ago
Very good points. Some partial answers/comments (my 0.02): 1) You can measure competing bus companies by revenues, or in the case of Estonia by other metrics (e.g. number of rides (assuming you can track passengers, perhaps with cell phone apps), satisfaction, "on schedule" rides, transportation coverage). 2) I actually don't believe that buses are the right type of public transportation, going forward. There's a chance that it will be cheaper to offer self-driving cars instead. I am not too optimistic about driverless cars "time to market", however you can constraint the complexity of the problem if you have a) Fixed routes, and b) specific vehicles / sensors (e.g. how to deal with snow in Estonia), paired with a great maintenance service (again, if the government can provide an SLA on snow removal, you can assume that as a reduction in complexity).
jlebrech 8y ago
you replace monolithic BUS companies, with driver recruiting companies and bus servicing companies.

hndamien 8y ago

Don't forget electric scooters!

IkmoIkmo 8y ago
Yup, will definitely be a big part of the story! Not sure I'm a big fan myself. They sort of sit between bicycles and electric mini cars. [0] The cars are safer and allow easy multi-passengers, groceries, long-distance, all weather conditions, intercity travel. Bicycles are cheap, good for your health, nimble, safe on dedicated cycling infrastructure (see the Netherlands). Scooters take the best but also the worst from both. They're low-effort and relatively high-speed compared to bicycles, but nimble and relatively cheap compared to cars. But they're also relatively expensive compared to bicycles, have poor weather conditions of bicycles and are relatively unsafe and can't do intercity trips or grocery runs as easily as cars. They also aren't really suited for automation, and I feel they're less suited for ridesharing, but it's not easy to identify exactly why that is. I kind of feel every scooter ride is better off either as a bicycle ride or car ride, assuming you have these ubiquitous self-driving car2go 'travel pods' you could call em, and assuming you have nice cycling infrastructure. (I have a very European/Dutch perspective on this, outside cyclist-friendly cities I'd much rather have an electric scooter. But as a city I'd rather promote different infrastructure choices than scooters.) [0] https://www.car2go.com/media/data/germany/stuttgart/stuttgart-parking_492x20.jpg https://www.car2go.com/media/data/germany/stuttgart/stuttgar...
- hndamien 8y ago
  I think we are talking different scooters, I'm not talking about moped. I' talking like Xiaomi, Ninebot, e-Micro. Cheaper than bikes, low effort, high speed, nimble, shopping limited to a back pack, bad in weather. Less weight, less space and less dangerous than bikes.
  - IkmoIkmo 8y ago
    Ah yeah, misunderstood. It's quite interesting, I grew up in a cycling city/country. Sometimes we see reports of my countrymen going abroad to consult other cities in the US, Africa, Asia etc to go cyclist-first, and a key issue pops up is that of convincing people on the image aspects I never considered. i.e., jumping on a bicycle in a place like Cairo just means you're poor and low-class and a self-respecting salaried person wouldn't do it. I always understood that even though I never experienced any such thoughts myself due to growing up in a cyclist culture. I feel a bit like that with scooters. I mean I'm young, a student, I'd ride them. But as silly and self conscious as it sounds, I probably wouldn't in my 30s, 40s or 50s. I wouldn't take one to work and I'd feel weird about showing up at my gf or friends on one or walking around with a folded one. I now know what it feels like when people say these things about cyclists. It's hard for me to shape an opinion on adoption. Is it one of those things where if the infrastructure etc is good enough, everyone will do it. (e.g. cycling in Amsterdam, all ages, genders, ethnicities and classes cycle, although there is a bit of an ethnic divide). Or if it's one of those things where generally 30+ year olds will just never use scooters in substantial numbers in most countries.
  - walshemj 8y ago
    I would have said they are less stable and more likely to crash on hitting a pot hole. A simple look at the geometry of a scooter (the small wheeled kids type not a vespa or c90) vs a bike will tell you that. Let a lone the better and safer breaking you have on a bike vs an electric scooter
    - hndamien 8y ago
      You'd be surprised on the breaking. Because of the low mass and ability to jump off and put your feet down you can stop quite quickly. Potholes on the other hand are more challenging than a bike, so you need to watch. That said, your top speed is significantly less than a bike, so its less of an issue.
hk__2 8y ago
It’d be great if we could forget them, actually. Paris is filled with them; they take space everywhere and a lot of people don’t drive properly because you don’t need a licence. A lot of buildings have spaces for bikes, but scooters must be left in the streets. They damage sidewalks they’re (illegally) left on due to a high weight on a small surface.
- icebraining 8y ago
  They damage sidewalks they’re (illegally) left on due to a high weight on a small surface. That sounds suspect. Taking the example of a model used by one of the rent service in Paris, the Gogoro Smartscooter, that weighs 122Kg (incl. batteries), or 61Kg/tire. In comparison, a car like the Renault Zoe weighs almost 1500Kg, or 375Kg/tire. I know that bike tires are skinnier, but is it really enough to make more damage considering the weight differences?
  - Lukas_Skywalker 8y ago
    I think the issue are not the tires but the kickstand, which i have seen sinking into the tarmac on sunny days even on light bicycles.
    - tinus_hn 8y ago
      If you’re worried about a 122 kg bike sinking into the tarmac, better get started banning fat women wearing high heels.
      - hk__2 8y ago
        > If you’re worried about a 122 kg bike sinking into the tarmac, better get started banning fat women wearing high heels. Fat women weiring high heels usually don’t stand on one foot at the same place for a couple of days.
  - yardie 8y ago
    Yes. The sidewalks are asphalt. Which while it does have a viscosity approaching solid it is still liquid. A motorbike left in the same spot for weeks and months at a time will leave a dent in the sidewalk.

furiens 8y ago

Public transport in a lot of Europe is publicly owned/run. Standards aren't maintained by market competition, but by politics.

Phenomenit 8y ago
I don't know about the rest of European countries but in Sweden the regional governments purchase the service from private companies for a fixed price over a 4 year contract. Every time the contract is up for renewal they ask for bids from all eligible companies so there is competition to place the lowest price based on requirements.
- Broken_Hippo 8y ago
  From what I can tell, something similar happens in Norway. If I recall correctly, the city busses, airport transportation busses, and the long-distance busses are different companies (or at least theoretically can be). The taxis are another company altogether.
  - varjag 8y ago
    True, but it gradually consolidates with time. There used to be several city bus companies here in Bergen, then just two, then they merged into one. Municipality was major stakeholder in both and encouraged the merger. City tram is a separate company but also owned by the municipality. Taxis are a different story, most of them are private franchizes and it's working pretty well. Part of the reason ridesharing services were unable to gain any foothold here I believe.
- amaccuish 8y ago
  We have this in the UK, at least for trains. Companies just end up bidding the lowest, knowing there's no way they can provide a reasonable service at that price. They then cut back on trains and quality, and eventually the contracts are cancelled.
  - walshemj 8y ago

jacquesm 8y ago

> How do five bussing companies compete if there's no revenue model. Why would they need five bussing companies when one suffices? They might not even need the one, the government could run it.

rayiner 8y ago
Because then there would be no competition, and bus drivers would clock out early leaving people stranded with no repercussions. As someone living in America I can’t even imagine what it’s like to live somewhere you can trust the government to run something like public transit. This is the on time performance of the Amtrak I’d take to work if it was ever on time: https://juckins.net/amtrak_status/archive/html/history.php?train_num=111&station=Ncr&date_start=04%2F19%2F2018&date_end=05%2F19%2F2018&df2=1&df3=1&df4=1&df5=1&df6=1&sort=schDp&sort_dir=DESC&co=gt&limit_mins=&dfon=1 https://juckins.net/amtrak_status/archive/html/history.php?t....
- 0x4f3759df 8y ago
  Amtrak doesn't own the rails, so the delays are not their fault (freight gets priority), but I would hesitate to take Amtrak because of asset forfeiture. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/how-the-dea-harasses-amtrak-passengers/393230/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/how-the...
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Amtrak owns the rails on this segment (Boston to DC).
    - martinald 8y ago
      There's also MARC and Washington Metro service from that station. Is that also as unreliable as Amtrak? Why would you just choose to take Amtrak to DC when you have two better options there? The delays there are poor but train 111 departs from NY so has a long time to get delayed en route to that station. It's not a classic example of a commuter train.

the_mitsuhiko 8y ago

> For example it may make sense to charge more for luxurious buses Which transit system with a subscription model does that? We have a year ticket in Vienna and since that is a flatrate you can already not do that.

tinus_hn 8y ago
Don’t most countries have first class and second class train service while they also have flat rate subscriptions? The subscription for first class is just more expensive.
- tonfa 8y ago
  Here we're talking about urban transportation, it's fairly rare to have different class of service.
pandem 8y ago
Dubai has first class in the metro. You can either buy a first or second class pass.
Mediterraneo10 8y ago
Cape Town has first-class and second-class carriages in its municipal rail.

pjc50 8y ago

Even in most places that have private public transport, either there is a local monopoly or near monopoly. It's very rare to be able to pick which carrier you want for a particular route.

the_mitsuhiko 8y ago
And the places where you can pick your carrier are typically also the ones where people complain about the ticketing complexities.
- isostatic 8y ago
  People who use choice to their advantage like the competition. Lazy people don't. That's fine, until the Lazy people conspire to take away the choice from the rest of us. In the UK, we have people complaining about the price of power, however all you have to do is visit a site like uswitch.com, put in your details, and save hundreds, yet millions of people haven't done that, instead spending their energy complaining about the prices. The same with transport -- there's half a dozen ways to travel from say Edinburgh to London, including Planes, Train (multiple operators), Car, Taxi and Coaches. They all have pros and cons. But because people can't be bothered to either look up different options themselves, or go somewhere like trainsplit.com, there is a lot of pressure to "remove loopholes" like break of journey, split ticketing, slower but cheaper trains, etc, meaning those of us who do travel cheaply will lose out, because a few selfish lazy people can't be bothered to visit a website.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    > But because people can't be bothered to either look up different options themselves, or go somewhere like trainsplit.com, there is a lot of pressure to "remove loopholes" like break of journey, split ticketing, slower but cheaper trains, etc, meaning those of us who do travel cheaply will lose out, because a few selfish lazy people can't be bothered to visit a website No. When you're planning a journey from London to Edinburgh you should be able to go to the national rail journey planner and get the cheapest ticket, the shortest travel time, and then first class options on top. http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/ http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/ You shouldn't need to go to a separate website to include weird options like split tickets, broken journeys, or alternate routes. These should all be built into the system. The reason these weird options exist is because the UK train ticketing system is so stupidly complicated.

Broken_Hippo 8y ago

As far as odd times (3am, for example) and odd locations: Yes, the government should include these. I've worked many jobs that would fall outside of normal route times at night (when I've had access to busses, that is). Weekends, late nights, early starts. These jobs range from nurses aides to pharmacy workers to fast food to retail to factory work. Many are low-paying, but some aren't. If people cannot get to and from their jobs, especially folks working low-paying jobs, in a timely manner, it works against the goals of public transport. Now, there are other good points to having odd hours: Getting drunk folks home, enjoyment of city life when city life is happening, and so on. As far as the competing companies, they probably would bid to run the bus system in an area for x years. Overlap might be an issue otherwise.

jimnotgym 8y ago
More than that, I have a member of staff that can only work 9-5 because those are the only hours that the bus routes service. They really want to start earlier and finish earlier but can't. More out of hours services would allow people more scope to work different hours and travel off peak.
dzhiurgis 8y ago
I believe such service should be bookable, ala Uber pool. Just running buses empty isn't smart. You'd be excluding few percent who still can't or wouldn't own a smartphone tho.

baby 8y ago

You take a capitalist point of view. But the problem could be approached by having the government pay for it and avoid transport competing in a city that is already narrow in space.

v2ikesibul 8y ago

There's a single company running the routes and it's owned by the city: http://www.tallinnlt.ee/en/about-the-company/about-tallinna-linnatranspordi-as/ http://www.tallinnlt.ee/en/about-the-company/about-tallinna-...

jdietrich 8y ago

Buses are a hard problem. In the UK, most of the bus network was in public ownership until the 1980s. The Thatcher government deregulated the bus industry, allowing any operator to run bus services and set their own routes and timetables. This greatly increased the level of competition on popular and profitable routes, but it also created the problem of cherry-picking. The new private operators didn't bother with unprofitable but socially-valuable routes, which local governments felt obliged to serve or subsidise. The most profitable routes often became massively oversaturated, with competing operators engaging in "bus wars" in an attempt to dominate that route and force out the other operators. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_deregulation_in_Great_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_deregulation_in_Great_Brit...

Tuna-Fish 8y ago
> The new private operators didn't bother with unprofitable but socially-valuable routes, which local governments felt obliged to serve or subsidise. That's exactly how it should be. A lot of people have the idea that bus operators should be forced to drive the unprofitable routes in order to be allowed to drive the profitable ones. This would work if buses were literally the only way to get around. Since they are not, what it does is drive up the cost of public transport and make it less appealing. In Finland, it eventually caused the prices to rise so high, that it was generally cheaper to drive. This is socially disastrous. If there is a route that is not profitable to run, you should not expect a company to run it. The free market should manage the profitable routes, and drive down the prices as low as they can go. Any socially valuable routes on top of those should be subsidized out of the taxes of the people they provide value to.
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  The thing is, private transit has an incentive to go anywhere there's sufficient density of people. If buses don't want to go somewhere, it's probably because there aren't enough people to justify it there, which can be solved with zoning. Sometimes there are other issues too, like too much crime, but even then there's still something for the government to solve that would make it profitable for private transit.

notahacker 8y ago

The counter argument is that removing travel costs makes other market forces (competition in shopping, accommodation and employment) more active at the low end where travel costs matter more (and travel time less)

CalRobert 8y ago

I support this too. Cars are death to cities. But your points are valid. One approach would be the good old market. Give people x amount to spend on transport and let them decide how to use it. When I had parking cashout in Santa Monica early in my career I loved the extra $2500 a month in my paycheck, and starting my day with a bike ride. Of course, this only works if, every road is tolled high enough to account for the negative externalities of driving (pollution, people killed while walking, cycling, motorcycling, etc., noise, the end of the North Atlantic Meridional Overturning circulation causing northern Europe to be nearly uninhabitable in winter.. so on and so forth), and of course, to build/maintain/police it.

CalRobert 8y ago
Sorry - that's $2500 a year, of course.
dba7dba 8y ago
I agree that cars are not good for cities. When I was in S. Korea few years ago, I got to visit a newer apartment complex, with dozens of 20 - 30 stories tall apartment buildings. One important feature the builder/architect added is underground parking for all cars of visitors/residents. The entrance to the parking lot is right next to the street. There are roads within the complex for Fire/emergency/moving-trucks, but no other cars are allowed onto the ground of the complex. So there are no cars driving around within the complex. Not having to worry about dodging cars or dealing with car-noise/engine-exhaust-smell all combined to make the quality of life so much better. With some grass and greenery planted, walking within the complex felt like walking on a hiking trail. And this is in the of a huge apartment complex with thousands of units.

tejasmanohar 8y ago

Maybe it would be better if the government gave everyone $XX/mo transit credit so the market forces remain intact. Obviously, the downside is it may no longer be free for everyone, but maybe it’s a good trade off to avoid complacency

simonebrunozzi 8y ago

Very good points. Some partial answers/comments (my 0.02): 1) You can measure competing bus companies by revenues, or in the case of Estonia by other metrics (e.g. number of rides (assuming you can track passengers, perhaps with cell phone apps), satisfaction, "on schedule" rides, transportation coverage). 2) I actually don't believe that buses are the right type of public transportation, going forward. There's a chance that it will be cheaper to offer self-driving cars instead. I am not too optimistic about driverless cars "time to market", however you can constraint the complexity of the problem if you have a) Fixed routes, and b) specific vehicles / sensors (e.g. how to deal with snow in Estonia), paired with a great maintenance service (again, if the government can provide an SLA on snow removal, you can assume that as a reduction in complexity).

jlebrech 8y ago

you replace monolithic BUS companies, with driver recruiting companies and bus servicing companies.