10 ms·

- Uber builds a bus - Uber asks to use bus lanes because because once again, and ITT, private sector frames public sector as “a peer product” that should have

- Uber builds a bus - Uber asks to use bus lanes because because once again, and ITT, private sector frames public sector as “a peer product” that should have competition because this is America and so on - Uber gets access to bus lanes - pub transit degrades bc now it shares service with competition that operates under an entirely different model. A lion is introduced into a zoo with house cats, but hey they’re both cats and think of the zoo observers, they deserve options! - Taxpayers fund Uber and buses, only one has the revenue model to provide unbiased social good - Buses, like Amtrak and pub transit, degrade and degrade and degrade - look how government can’t do anything! Turning a profit” for public services is the most harebrained meme that is simultaneously deeply damaging and continually propagated by certain folks, to include ITT. Or we could just all get mercenaries for our burbclaves. Not like police turn a profit either!

mmooss 1y ago
You forgot the step where, after public transit competition is crushed, they raise prices.
- yewW0tm8 1y ago
  Best part is this urban areas, commuting just a few miles a day. We should be doing the opposite; reducing traffic except for those with mobility issues and for utilitarian situations like deliveries and moving large objects. Everyone that can walk/bike should.
ardit33 1y ago
Most of BUS lanes in NYC are not fully occupied. 2/3rd of the time they are just sit empty. But, I agree on the part that they will slow down a bit existing public transportation, but, if Uber served routes that are currently difficult to reach, it has public service as well. Why would someone pay $10 for the Uber service, meanwhile the local one is just $3? There is a good chance that the local bus doesn't cover certain areas properly, or stops too frequently, making it a slow trip for regular commuters. Ps. In Europe there is both public and private trains, both running the same tracks. I don't see a problem with this.
- dcrazy 1y ago
  A transit lane with excess capacity is a feature, not a bug. It provides slack to recover from issues.
  - vkou 1y ago
    Slack is good, too much slack is wasteful. Charge them their full amortized share of the road, raise rates if congestion becomes a problem.
    - lancewiggs 1y ago
      Sure - if you do it by passengers and not by vehicle count. Busses are hilariously more efficient at moving people.
      - vkou 1y ago
        People don't occupy space on roads, vehicles do. They should absolutely be paying by vehicle count. It's their problem if they can't fill the vehicles.
  - dheera 1y ago
    That works in cities like Zurich where there are lots of buses going absolutely everywhere and are almost always perfectly on time. I worked there for 3 months and my 8:23am city bus was there on the dot pretty much every day. It would often get to the stop at 8:21 and wait till 8:23, like clockwork. There was no payment system on the actual bus, people had to take care of payments outside the bus so as not to delay boarding. In the US, buses largely don't need to get you where you need to go, are never on time, delayed at every stop by a line of people fumbling for how to shove crumpled dollar bills into the machine. The governments have no plans to fix any of this, so I welcome the private sector to step in and provide a bus solution in the meantime that is fast, clean, and efficient.
    - mmooss 1y ago
      The Zurich story is interesting. The US story is just fantasy. Buses work well, few people use cash or coins, and government has been and is improving things - including payment. For example, I've seen plenty of public transit where people pay before the vehicle arrives.
thallium205 1y ago
There's already an Uber for mercenaries. https://www.techspot.com/news/106838-protector-uber-guns-app-you-hire-armed-bodyguards.html https://www.techspot.com/news/106838-protector-uber-guns-app...
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> pub transit degrades bc now it shares service with competition Privately-operated buses on city bus lanes seems fine? Like, American cities have largely failed at making bus rapid transit economically sustainable and comfortable for the broader population. Trying a different model seems prudent versus going for puritinism. (The alternative for these riders isn’t the bus. It’s private Ubers and cars. If cities won’t permit something like this, it warrants asking if public resources are better used turning those bus lanes into standard ones.) > Taxpayers fund Uber and buses Why? Charge a use fee.
- pavel_lishin 1y ago
  > The alternative for these riders isn’t the bus. It’s private Ubers and cars. Why? If they're taking a fixed-route shuttle, why is their only alternative a different sub-service of Uber?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - nickff 1y ago
    In the vast majority of US cities, most people do not use transit. Most of the people who choose not to use Uber shuttles or busses will be opting for passenger vehicles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_high_transit_ridership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_high_...
    - neltnerb 1y ago
      You're likely right, but I suspect only because of social stigma and classism. Literally what is the difference between a fixed route shuttle operated by Uber versus a bus operated by the city, except that one siphons the profit into a private company? I imagine flexibility of imagination more than practicality. If Uber can do it, especially if they can do it profitably, I'm at a loss as to why a city government could not accomplish the same. This seems like a vastly better approach, cities have to start somewhere. -- https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1017072 https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1017072 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43980845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43980845
fblp 1y ago
In Australia it's not unusual for taxis to be allowed to use bus lanes, and a portion of taxi fees go to the state. They can also charge Uber a fee to use the bus lane so the state gets more revenue than before for the same asset.
- lillecarl 1y ago
  Taxis can use bus lanes in Sweden too, but here people don't commute by taxi.("ever") Cities where Uber and Bolt have precense also has good enough public transport for people who don't own a car for some other reason than going to work. I think it's fair taxis use bus lanes, you pay VAT on the taxi ride which goes back to the government to keep building.
fuckyah 1y ago
[dead]
seltzered_ 1y ago
> Or we could just all get mercenaries for our burbclaves. Not like police turn a profit either! There was literally a documentary on Citizen in 2023: https://www.vice.com/en/article/watch-new-documentary-tells-inside-story-of-vigilante-app-citizen/ https://www.vice.com/en/article/watch-new-documentary-tells-...
groby_b 1y ago
> Buses, like Amtrak and pub transit, degrade and degrade and degrade - look how government can’t do anything! As an LA resident: Public buses degrade just fine without any uber buses. And we seem to lack the political will to fix that. As for Amtrak: Outside the NE corridor, it's one of the more useless train systems I've seen. Only eclipsed by CA HSR. Yes, we shouldn't corporatize the commons. But... that requires us to develop the will to actually care about the commons as a polity.
macspoofing 1y ago
>pub transit degrades bc now it shares service with competition that operates under an entirely different model. Public transit degrades because bus lanes are now congested with people taking mass transit instead of single cars ... and we don't want this why? The goal is to get people into taxis/uber, buses, subways, bicycles ... basically anything except a car.
- delusional 1y ago
  > The public transit degrades because bus lanes are now congested with people taking mass transit instead of single cars ... and we don't want this why? That would be nice. In the real world they would be congested with Uber buses that purposefully block the public option to ruthlessly "out-compete" it. Maybe uber will start transporting their food delivery in the bus. Now you have a congested bus lane full of burgers. > taxis > anything besides a car kek.
  - underlipton 1y ago
    Taxis typically don't need long-term parking at every location they visit. That makes them hugely different from personal vehicles.
- radlad 1y ago
  Are taxis/ubers really better for the environment than a personal car? I'm not sure I consider them "mass transit" since they still typically only carry 1-3 people. While they may require less parking infrastructure, they likely spend more time idling, and they don't reduce congestion on the road. Some problems with buses are that they can be slow, require more planning, and may not drop you off exactly at your destination. There are three primary reasons people choose them anyway: Ethics (i.e. environmental concerns), convenience (in some cities, public transit is actually faster on average) and cost. Bus lanes are meant to make buses more appealing by increasing their speed and reliability (i.e. convenience.) Filling a bus lane with Ubers will slow down buses, making them less attractive which also hurts the price conscious (i.e. lower class) the most.
  - 1y ago
underlipton 1y ago
*including And burbclave police already exist. Otherwise I agree. This is dumb. It also feels like a safety issue, but I can't quite articulate why. Also, private commuter busses already exist that can use bus lanes... But technically it's a service provided by the local transit authority. @uber: get in line with all the other contractors, bub.
charcircuit 1y ago
>Turning a profit” for public services is the most harebrained meme that is simultaneously deeply damaging and continually propagated by certain folks, to include ITT. It's not a meme. It's common sense and is how you avoid wasting resources.
seanmcdirmid 1y ago
I'm not sure I know of any city whose bus lanes work well enough that any substantial degradation would be noticed if Uber used them also. That isn't saying that you don't have a point, buses just don't work that great in the first place (at least bus lanes don't seem to help in the cities I use them in).
badc0ffee 1y ago
I wouldn't call transit systems "unbiased social good" in every case. In many cities, bus systems have to strike a balance between frequency and coverage. My transit system had big plans to switch many routes to have straighter routing and fewer stops, while providing much better frequency and hours of service. This would have attracted more riders and increased funding for the system. But, local councilors were swayed by the idea that impoverished senior citizens relying on their milk run that comes every 45 minutes until 6 PM would no longer be near enough to a stop, and so not equitably served (never mind that we have a paratransit service for people who truly can't walk to a stop 500 metres away). So, nothing changed. I'm not surprised that private services are going to fill the gaps here.
- rbanffy 1y ago
  > I'm not surprised that private services are going to fill the gaps here. They’ll only serve profitable routes.
65 1y ago
Much of Japan's train network is privately operated. Japan has some of the best transportation in the world. Take a look at Brightline. Brightline from Orlando to Miami had 2.7 million riders last year. They're already working on Brightline West from LA to Las Vegas. I think public transportation infrastructure is great for rural areas. It's similar to USPS serving everyone. But if USPS was the only mail carrier everywhere, package delivery service would be demonstrably worse. What is wrong with both private and public transportation infrastructure?
- GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
  i think the US lacks the regulatory structure and social character that's more present in Japan that make private-public services more successful there. as a regular metro commuter, i don't think i'd be totally opposed to private transit in LA if it were heavily regulated. but without that, i'd rather deal with all the problems on the metro (stinky riders, drivers switching mid-route, track traffic) at 1.75 per ride, than any of my money go to making Uber shareholders (or anyone who profits by exploiting the "gig economy") more money.
  - cryptonector 1y ago
    The U.S. used to have a vibrant private transportation industry. The cities killed it. NYC is a great example. The vast majority of the NYC subway system was constructed by _two_ private companies (!) in the 19-teens(!) in competition with each other(!!). The city regulated them and kept them from raising fares in the 20s and 30s. By the 40s the city had to rescue and acquire them because they could not survive on artificially-low fares. And until the 50s there was a vibrant trolley car and bus network between Brooklyn and Queens. Today only the city runs buses, and there is much less capacity per-capita between Brooklyn and Queens. It's the same nationwide, roughly. There is nothing like Buenos Aires' private bus system in the U.S. because the cities don't allow it. It didn't have to be that way. But in the U.S. the federal government has no power to nationalize, the States do but are in competition with each other so they don't do it. But the cities? The cities can totally "nationalize" the transport industry, and they do and did all the way up until ride sharing came along to destroy the hyper-regulated taxi industry. Ride sharing grew fast enough that the cities did not have time to quash it and now they can't without incurring the ire of their citizens. Now finally comes the ride sharing industry to -let us hope- finally destroy the cities' stranglehold on public transportation.
mhh__ 1y ago
What's a public service? Supermarkets are more important to me than buses, they're not run by the state.
- GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
  i'd love to shop at a state-owned not-for-profit supermarket. maybe not 100% of the time but the option would be nice and would keep 100% of the profit within the local economy.
  - mhh__ 1y ago
    Who says there'd be a profit? Don't supermarkets rely on enormous scale and then eek out a few percent? I'd love a state that could do that (well, ignoring the orwellian aspect of that) but this is a game for the paperclip maximizers.
    - pastage 1y ago
      You only need the scale in car centric places, where you can externalize every cost to the customers.
    - GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
      I misused 'profit' the second time - I should have said revenue.
legitster 1y ago
That's quite the slippery slope you've made there. Co-mingling public and private transit seems to work pretty well in places like Europe. Remembering that the only real market for this service is to take drivers off the streets during rush hour - it's hard to see this as compete with city busses or even be a bad thing.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
pessimizer 1y ago
> pub transit degrades bc now it shares service with competition that operates under an entirely different model. Public transit is already extremely degraded, which is why there was an opening for private fixed-route transport. Whether you were born in 1920 or 2000, you can wistfully recall how much better public transportation was when you were a child. Complaining about private buses doesn't get public transportation funded. Funding public transportation gets public transportation funded.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
kurtis_reed 1y ago
> only one has the revenue model to provide unbiased social good Yes! All government programs are perfectly efficient and immune against corruption. Why don't people understand this??
- margalabargala 1y ago
  I think you misread their post. They aren't claiming that government programs do provide unbiased public could, just that they could, and are being compared to private corporations which cannot. That's something that's easy to understand if for someone who tries and not actually particularly related to things like "perfect" efficiency or "immunity" from corruption.
  - dogman144 1y ago
    Correct
cryptonector 1y ago
I'm pretty sure that is just your biases talking. Where's the experience elsewhere in the world? In Buenos Aires there are only privately-operated buses and bus routes. The city did and does build bus lanes. Idk if the bus companies pay a fee to access the bus lanes but I imagine that they must. You have no idea how amazing the bus network is in Buenos Aires.
protocolture 1y ago
> - Uber gets access to bus lanes IIRC in my city private bus companies that participate in the state public transport scheme already have access to bus lanes and transit corridors. If uber wants to hang all that regulation around their neck, no issue with them using those bus lanes.
grues-dinner 1y ago
> Turning a profit” for public services is the most harebrained meme that is simultaneously deeply damaging and continually propagated by certain folks Thank you. I don't know why this has gotten so ingrained. Whenever making public transit free, or functionally free like some places in continental Europe now do, you have people immediately pop up and get almost comically agitated about how the system would be immediately and permanently overwhelmed by demand and there's just no money anyway and it's a stupid idea and please never say it again. Ignoring that it already didn't happen where it literally is done today, what a nice problem to have: people going out to do things. That's called the economy, stupid, and the money you spend on running that system both promotes economic activity like going to work and popping to the shops on a whim, spends lots of it locally on staff, as well as reducing the money that is "lost" to imports like fuel, cars and externalities like environment and healthcare. And that's just the dead-eyed homo ecomonicus areshole argument: more importantly, allowing anyone to just go out and partake in wider society at some place of your choosing for free is good for wellbeing and good for society in general. When people don't have money to spare, spending several hours' work worth of discretionary cash just going to the park or library (ditto for the argument to fund the everliving fuck out of them rather then cutting cutting cutting) to hang out is just impossible, let doing going further afield.

mmooss 1y ago

You forgot the step where, after public transit competition is crushed, they raise prices.

yewW0tm8 1y ago
Best part is this urban areas, commuting just a few miles a day. We should be doing the opposite; reducing traffic except for those with mobility issues and for utilitarian situations like deliveries and moving large objects. Everyone that can walk/bike should.

ardit33 1y ago

Most of BUS lanes in NYC are not fully occupied. 2/3rd of the time they are just sit empty. But, I agree on the part that they will slow down a bit existing public transportation, but, if Uber served routes that are currently difficult to reach, it has public service as well. Why would someone pay $10 for the Uber service, meanwhile the local one is just $3? There is a good chance that the local bus doesn't cover certain areas properly, or stops too frequently, making it a slow trip for regular commuters. Ps. In Europe there is both public and private trains, both running the same tracks. I don't see a problem with this.

dcrazy 1y ago
A transit lane with excess capacity is a feature, not a bug. It provides slack to recover from issues.
- vkou 1y ago
  Slack is good, too much slack is wasteful. Charge them their full amortized share of the road, raise rates if congestion becomes a problem.
  - lancewiggs 1y ago
    Sure - if you do it by passengers and not by vehicle count. Busses are hilariously more efficient at moving people.
    - vkou 1y ago
      People don't occupy space on roads, vehicles do. They should absolutely be paying by vehicle count. It's their problem if they can't fill the vehicles.
- dheera 1y ago
  That works in cities like Zurich where there are lots of buses going absolutely everywhere and are almost always perfectly on time. I worked there for 3 months and my 8:23am city bus was there on the dot pretty much every day. It would often get to the stop at 8:21 and wait till 8:23, like clockwork. There was no payment system on the actual bus, people had to take care of payments outside the bus so as not to delay boarding. In the US, buses largely don't need to get you where you need to go, are never on time, delayed at every stop by a line of people fumbling for how to shove crumpled dollar bills into the machine. The governments have no plans to fix any of this, so I welcome the private sector to step in and provide a bus solution in the meantime that is fast, clean, and efficient.
  - mmooss 1y ago
    The Zurich story is interesting. The US story is just fantasy. Buses work well, few people use cash or coins, and government has been and is improving things - including payment. For example, I've seen plenty of public transit where people pay before the vehicle arrives.

thallium205 1y ago

There's already an Uber for mercenaries. https://www.techspot.com/news/106838-protector-uber-guns-app-you-hire-armed-bodyguards.html https://www.techspot.com/news/106838-protector-uber-guns-app...

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> pub transit degrades bc now it shares service with competition Privately-operated buses on city bus lanes seems fine? Like, American cities have largely failed at making bus rapid transit economically sustainable and comfortable for the broader population. Trying a different model seems prudent versus going for puritinism. (The alternative for these riders isn’t the bus. It’s private Ubers and cars. If cities won’t permit something like this, it warrants asking if public resources are better used turning those bus lanes into standard ones.) > Taxpayers fund Uber and buses Why? Charge a use fee.

pavel_lishin 1y ago
> The alternative for these riders isn’t the bus. It’s private Ubers and cars. Why? If they're taking a fixed-route shuttle, why is their only alternative a different sub-service of Uber?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- nickff 1y ago
  In the vast majority of US cities, most people do not use transit. Most of the people who choose not to use Uber shuttles or busses will be opting for passenger vehicles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_high_transit_ridership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_high_...
  - neltnerb 1y ago
    You're likely right, but I suspect only because of social stigma and classism. Literally what is the difference between a fixed route shuttle operated by Uber versus a bus operated by the city, except that one siphons the profit into a private company? I imagine flexibility of imagination more than practicality. If Uber can do it, especially if they can do it profitably, I'm at a loss as to why a city government could not accomplish the same. This seems like a vastly better approach, cities have to start somewhere. -- https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1017072 https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1017072 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43980845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43980845

fblp 1y ago

In Australia it's not unusual for taxis to be allowed to use bus lanes, and a portion of taxi fees go to the state. They can also charge Uber a fee to use the bus lane so the state gets more revenue than before for the same asset.

lillecarl 1y ago
Taxis can use bus lanes in Sweden too, but here people don't commute by taxi.("ever") Cities where Uber and Bolt have precense also has good enough public transport for people who don't own a car for some other reason than going to work. I think it's fair taxis use bus lanes, you pay VAT on the taxi ride which goes back to the government to keep building.

fuckyah 1y ago

[dead]

seltzered_ 1y ago

> Or we could just all get mercenaries for our burbclaves. Not like police turn a profit either! There was literally a documentary on Citizen in 2023: https://www.vice.com/en/article/watch-new-documentary-tells-inside-story-of-vigilante-app-citizen/ https://www.vice.com/en/article/watch-new-documentary-tells-...

groby_b 1y ago

> Buses, like Amtrak and pub transit, degrade and degrade and degrade - look how government can’t do anything! As an LA resident: Public buses degrade just fine without any uber buses. And we seem to lack the political will to fix that. As for Amtrak: Outside the NE corridor, it's one of the more useless train systems I've seen. Only eclipsed by CA HSR. Yes, we shouldn't corporatize the commons. But... that requires us to develop the will to actually care about the commons as a polity.

macspoofing 1y ago

>pub transit degrades bc now it shares service with competition that operates under an entirely different model. Public transit degrades because bus lanes are now congested with people taking mass transit instead of single cars ... and we don't want this why? The goal is to get people into taxis/uber, buses, subways, bicycles ... basically anything except a car.

delusional 1y ago
> The public transit degrades because bus lanes are now congested with people taking mass transit instead of single cars ... and we don't want this why? That would be nice. In the real world they would be congested with Uber buses that purposefully block the public option to ruthlessly "out-compete" it. Maybe uber will start transporting their food delivery in the bus. Now you have a congested bus lane full of burgers. > taxis > anything besides a car kek.
- underlipton 1y ago
  Taxis typically don't need long-term parking at every location they visit. That makes them hugely different from personal vehicles.
radlad 1y ago
Are taxis/ubers really better for the environment than a personal car? I'm not sure I consider them "mass transit" since they still typically only carry 1-3 people. While they may require less parking infrastructure, they likely spend more time idling, and they don't reduce congestion on the road. Some problems with buses are that they can be slow, require more planning, and may not drop you off exactly at your destination. There are three primary reasons people choose them anyway: Ethics (i.e. environmental concerns), convenience (in some cities, public transit is actually faster on average) and cost. Bus lanes are meant to make buses more appealing by increasing their speed and reliability (i.e. convenience.) Filling a bus lane with Ubers will slow down buses, making them less attractive which also hurts the price conscious (i.e. lower class) the most.
- 1y ago

underlipton 1y ago

*including And burbclave police already exist. Otherwise I agree. This is dumb. It also feels like a safety issue, but I can't quite articulate why. Also, private commuter busses already exist that can use bus lanes... But technically it's a service provided by the local transit authority. @uber: get in line with all the other contractors, bub.

charcircuit 1y ago

>Turning a profit” for public services is the most harebrained meme that is simultaneously deeply damaging and continually propagated by certain folks, to include ITT. It's not a meme. It's common sense and is how you avoid wasting resources.

seanmcdirmid 1y ago

I'm not sure I know of any city whose bus lanes work well enough that any substantial degradation would be noticed if Uber used them also. That isn't saying that you don't have a point, buses just don't work that great in the first place (at least bus lanes don't seem to help in the cities I use them in).

badc0ffee 1y ago

I wouldn't call transit systems "unbiased social good" in every case. In many cities, bus systems have to strike a balance between frequency and coverage. My transit system had big plans to switch many routes to have straighter routing and fewer stops, while providing much better frequency and hours of service. This would have attracted more riders and increased funding for the system. But, local councilors were swayed by the idea that impoverished senior citizens relying on their milk run that comes every 45 minutes until 6 PM would no longer be near enough to a stop, and so not equitably served (never mind that we have a paratransit service for people who truly can't walk to a stop 500 metres away). So, nothing changed. I'm not surprised that private services are going to fill the gaps here.

rbanffy 1y ago
> I'm not surprised that private services are going to fill the gaps here. They’ll only serve profitable routes.

65 1y ago

Much of Japan's train network is privately operated. Japan has some of the best transportation in the world. Take a look at Brightline. Brightline from Orlando to Miami had 2.7 million riders last year. They're already working on Brightline West from LA to Las Vegas. I think public transportation infrastructure is great for rural areas. It's similar to USPS serving everyone. But if USPS was the only mail carrier everywhere, package delivery service would be demonstrably worse. What is wrong with both private and public transportation infrastructure?

GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
i think the US lacks the regulatory structure and social character that's more present in Japan that make private-public services more successful there. as a regular metro commuter, i don't think i'd be totally opposed to private transit in LA if it were heavily regulated. but without that, i'd rather deal with all the problems on the metro (stinky riders, drivers switching mid-route, track traffic) at 1.75 per ride, than any of my money go to making Uber shareholders (or anyone who profits by exploiting the "gig economy") more money.
- cryptonector 1y ago
  The U.S. used to have a vibrant private transportation industry. The cities killed it. NYC is a great example. The vast majority of the NYC subway system was constructed by _two_ private companies (!) in the 19-teens(!) in competition with each other(!!). The city regulated them and kept them from raising fares in the 20s and 30s. By the 40s the city had to rescue and acquire them because they could not survive on artificially-low fares. And until the 50s there was a vibrant trolley car and bus network between Brooklyn and Queens. Today only the city runs buses, and there is much less capacity per-capita between Brooklyn and Queens. It's the same nationwide, roughly. There is nothing like Buenos Aires' private bus system in the U.S. because the cities don't allow it. It didn't have to be that way. But in the U.S. the federal government has no power to nationalize, the States do but are in competition with each other so they don't do it. But the cities? The cities can totally "nationalize" the transport industry, and they do and did all the way up until ride sharing came along to destroy the hyper-regulated taxi industry. Ride sharing grew fast enough that the cities did not have time to quash it and now they can't without incurring the ire of their citizens. Now finally comes the ride sharing industry to -let us hope- finally destroy the cities' stranglehold on public transportation.

mhh__ 1y ago

What's a public service? Supermarkets are more important to me than buses, they're not run by the state.

GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
i'd love to shop at a state-owned not-for-profit supermarket. maybe not 100% of the time but the option would be nice and would keep 100% of the profit within the local economy.
- mhh__ 1y ago
  Who says there'd be a profit? Don't supermarkets rely on enormous scale and then eek out a few percent? I'd love a state that could do that (well, ignoring the orwellian aspect of that) but this is a game for the paperclip maximizers.
  - pastage 1y ago
    You only need the scale in car centric places, where you can externalize every cost to the customers.
  - GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
    I misused 'profit' the second time - I should have said revenue.

legitster 1y ago

That's quite the slippery slope you've made there. Co-mingling public and private transit seems to work pretty well in places like Europe. Remembering that the only real market for this service is to take drivers off the streets during rush hour - it's hard to see this as compete with city busses or even be a bad thing.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

pessimizer 1y ago

> pub transit degrades bc now it shares service with competition that operates under an entirely different model. Public transit is already extremely degraded, which is why there was an opening for private fixed-route transport. Whether you were born in 1920 or 2000, you can wistfully recall how much better public transportation was when you were a child. Complaining about private buses doesn't get public transportation funded. Funding public transportation gets public transportation funded.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

kurtis_reed 1y ago

> only one has the revenue model to provide unbiased social good Yes! All government programs are perfectly efficient and immune against corruption. Why don't people understand this??

margalabargala 1y ago
I think you misread their post. They aren't claiming that government programs do provide unbiased public could, just that they could, and are being compared to private corporations which cannot. That's something that's easy to understand if for someone who tries and not actually particularly related to things like "perfect" efficiency or "immunity" from corruption.
- dogman144 1y ago
  Correct

cryptonector 1y ago

I'm pretty sure that is just your biases talking. Where's the experience elsewhere in the world? In Buenos Aires there are only privately-operated buses and bus routes. The city did and does build bus lanes. Idk if the bus companies pay a fee to access the bus lanes but I imagine that they must. You have no idea how amazing the bus network is in Buenos Aires.

protocolture 1y ago

> - Uber gets access to bus lanes IIRC in my city private bus companies that participate in the state public transport scheme already have access to bus lanes and transit corridors. If uber wants to hang all that regulation around their neck, no issue with them using those bus lanes.

grues-dinner 1y ago

> Turning a profit” for public services is the most harebrained meme that is simultaneously deeply damaging and continually propagated by certain folks Thank you. I don't know why this has gotten so ingrained. Whenever making public transit free, or functionally free like some places in continental Europe now do, you have people immediately pop up and get almost comically agitated about how the system would be immediately and permanently overwhelmed by demand and there's just no money anyway and it's a stupid idea and please never say it again. Ignoring that it already didn't happen where it literally is done today, what a nice problem to have: people going out to do things. That's called the economy, stupid, and the money you spend on running that system both promotes economic activity like going to work and popping to the shops on a whim, spends lots of it locally on staff, as well as reducing the money that is "lost" to imports like fuel, cars and externalities like environment and healthcare. And that's just the dead-eyed homo ecomonicus areshole argument: more importantly, allowing anyone to just go out and partake in wider society at some place of your choosing for free is good for wellbeing and good for society in general. When people don't have money to spare, spending several hours' work worth of discretionary cash just going to the park or library (ditto for the argument to fund the everliving fuck out of them rather then cutting cutting cutting) to hang out is just impossible, let doing going further afield.