4 ms·

This doesn't surprise me, from the same stupid state that shut down a startup just for putting more buses on the road

gruez 8y ago
the story isn't as simple as "shut down a startup just for putting more buses on the road". it's that the local transit authority has a monopoly on public transport, so no other companies can compete. the logic for that is that otherwise, for-profit entities would only operate profitable routes, leaving distant/poor/low density areas unserved. by operating as a monopoly, the transit authority can subsidize the less profitable routes with the more profitable routes, ensuring everybody has service, not just the people who live near the profitable routes. a similar logic exists applies to the USPS, which has a monopoly on letter mail (except for express services).
- pascalxus 8y ago
  Government transportation does have a monopoly but not necessarily private companies. If private companies set up new transportation lines, it doesn't prevent government from adding more. Furthermore, if you regulate everything before it has time to flourish, you deny society all the benefits of any tech that would have developed. Also, it's short sited to shut down bus routes that don't go directly to your house. Just because it doesn't go to your specific neighborhood (yet) doesn't mean you can't benefit. Increasing bus service, decreases pollution for everyone (c02) and may even reduce the amount of traffic on your commute.
  - gruez 8y ago
    >Government transportation does have a monopoly but not necessarily private companies. If private companies set up new transportation lines, it doesn't prevent government from adding more. Are we talking about the same thing (monopolies on public transport) here? The whole point of granting the transit authority an monopoly is so they can exercise that monopoly to transfer funds from the more profitable routes to the less/not profitable routes. If private companies are allowed to run their own buses, they can undercut the transit authority's fares, because their fares don't include the "subsidy" to the other routes. >Also, it's short sited to shut down bus routes that don't go directly to your house. Just because it doesn't go to your specific neighborhood (yet) doesn't mean you can't benefit. Increasing bus service, decreases pollution for everyone (c02) and may even reduce the amount of traffic on your commute. Obviously having some buses is better than no buses, but what the monopoly is trying to ensure is that everybody can ride the bus, regardless if they live in the outskirts or downtown. You can disagree with whether or not it's the government's job to guarantee public transit for everybody, but that's the logic for why the laws were enacted.
    - mmt 8y ago
      > they can exercise that monopoly to transfer funds from the more profitable routes to the less/not profitable routes. As pointed out in a different sub-thread, using monopoly power to effect this transfer can be detrimental to consumers. The more traditional wealth transfer power of governments is taxation, which seems like a more straightforward method.
PretzelFisch 8y ago
I don't think the city representing all of it's citizens expressing their power to try and have services provided equitably to all it's citizens throughout the city is stupid. Sure they are not market driven and screw up the economics for the company. But if you look at what tools the city has available then most of that stupid becomes an understandable compromise.

the story isn't as simple as "shut down a startup just for putting more buses on the road". it's that the local transit authority has a monopoly on public transport, so no other companies can compete. the logic for that is that otherwise, for-profit entities would only operate profitable routes, leaving distant/poor/low density areas unserved. by operating as a monopoly, the transit authority can subsidize the less profitable routes with the more profitable routes, ensuring everybody has service, not just the people who live near the profitable routes. a similar logic exists applies to the USPS, which has a monopoly on letter mail (except for express services).

pascalxus 8y ago
Government transportation does have a monopoly but not necessarily private companies. If private companies set up new transportation lines, it doesn't prevent government from adding more. Furthermore, if you regulate everything before it has time to flourish, you deny society all the benefits of any tech that would have developed. Also, it's short sited to shut down bus routes that don't go directly to your house. Just because it doesn't go to your specific neighborhood (yet) doesn't mean you can't benefit. Increasing bus service, decreases pollution for everyone (c02) and may even reduce the amount of traffic on your commute.
- gruez 8y ago
  >Government transportation does have a monopoly but not necessarily private companies. If private companies set up new transportation lines, it doesn't prevent government from adding more. Are we talking about the same thing (monopolies on public transport) here? The whole point of granting the transit authority an monopoly is so they can exercise that monopoly to transfer funds from the more profitable routes to the less/not profitable routes. If private companies are allowed to run their own buses, they can undercut the transit authority's fares, because their fares don't include the "subsidy" to the other routes. >Also, it's short sited to shut down bus routes that don't go directly to your house. Just because it doesn't go to your specific neighborhood (yet) doesn't mean you can't benefit. Increasing bus service, decreases pollution for everyone (c02) and may even reduce the amount of traffic on your commute. Obviously having some buses is better than no buses, but what the monopoly is trying to ensure is that everybody can ride the bus, regardless if they live in the outskirts or downtown. You can disagree with whether or not it's the government's job to guarantee public transit for everybody, but that's the logic for why the laws were enacted.
  - mmt 8y ago
    > they can exercise that monopoly to transfer funds from the more profitable routes to the less/not profitable routes. As pointed out in a different sub-thread, using monopoly power to effect this transfer can be detrimental to consumers. The more traditional wealth transfer power of governments is taxation, which seems like a more straightforward method.

PretzelFisch 8y ago

I don't think the city representing all of it's citizens expressing their power to try and have services provided equitably to all it's citizens throughout the city is stupid. Sure they are not market driven and screw up the economics for the company. But if you look at what tools the city has available then most of that stupid becomes an understandable compromise.