3 ms·

> Take the high value, richer customers from the public transit system as it declines and ensure its complete demise. Richer customers don't pay more for publi

> Take the high value, richer customers from the public transit system as it declines and ensure its complete demise. Richer customers don't pay more for public transit. It's not like clothing, where they buy a better product and produce most of the profit. Removing some customers from bus systems doesn't have much of an effect. Bus systems are very flexible in changing routes and times to meet demand. It's not going to cause a "complete demise". Also, if private buses are profitable, they invite competition. Private buses are an incredibly easy business to start. So no, nobody's "free to jack up the prices to whatever you want them to be".

bgwalter 1y ago
Richer customers don't pay more, but they have the influence to keep public transit nice and functioning because they use it themselves. I suppose that in New York and London richer people use the subway to escape traffic jams. They can tell their politician friends (or bought politicians) to keep subsidizing it. In Europe privatization of public transport has been a disaster. Routes are cut, the trains don't run on time, etc.
- crazygringo 1y ago
  I don't think rich people have as much influence on public transit as you think. And in New York at least, truly rich people take a car service. Subways are for the normal people. The truly rich want their own private space and they want sunlight. In any case, nobody's talking about the privatization of public transport, which is the conversion from public to private. This is about alternate private options becoming available. The public option stays. And it's not about subways, it's about buses.
skeeter2020 1y ago
Rich customer here is not like 1% rich, but everyone above a min. wage job rich. If you remove them from the public system ridership drops signficantly and the scale required to support it erodes. It also becomes much easier to get concensus to reduce funding, accelerating the process. The argument here is more like Canada's public/private healthcare: anyone able to will opt out of the public side. If you don't keep the funding for it in place it will be comparably worse. I would expect it is much easier to cut funding to public transit with less riders, which this will definitely cause.
- crazygringo 1y ago
  That's stretching the definition of "rich" beyond any possible meaning. But yes, if you want to talk about the middle-class, which is what you seem to actually be referring to, let's. In most cities, they've already dropped out of buses. They take their own cars. A more expensive bus service like Uber's probably isn't going to taking much ridership away from public buses, but rather give middle-class people more options, so maybe they don't need a second car. And again, bus systems are remarkably scalable. Unlike things like subways and light rail. Routes and capacity are extremely flexible. Just because there are more transportation options, doesn't mean there's going to be a demise of city buses.

bgwalter 1y ago

Richer customers don't pay more, but they have the influence to keep public transit nice and functioning because they use it themselves. I suppose that in New York and London richer people use the subway to escape traffic jams. They can tell their politician friends (or bought politicians) to keep subsidizing it. In Europe privatization of public transport has been a disaster. Routes are cut, the trains don't run on time, etc.

crazygringo 1y ago
I don't think rich people have as much influence on public transit as you think. And in New York at least, truly rich people take a car service. Subways are for the normal people. The truly rich want their own private space and they want sunlight. In any case, nobody's talking about the privatization of public transport, which is the conversion from public to private. This is about alternate private options becoming available. The public option stays. And it's not about subways, it's about buses.

skeeter2020 1y ago

Rich customer here is not like 1% rich, but everyone above a min. wage job rich. If you remove them from the public system ridership drops signficantly and the scale required to support it erodes. It also becomes much easier to get concensus to reduce funding, accelerating the process. The argument here is more like Canada's public/private healthcare: anyone able to will opt out of the public side. If you don't keep the funding for it in place it will be comparably worse. I would expect it is much easier to cut funding to public transit with less riders, which this will definitely cause.

crazygringo 1y ago
That's stretching the definition of "rich" beyond any possible meaning. But yes, if you want to talk about the middle-class, which is what you seem to actually be referring to, let's. In most cities, they've already dropped out of buses. They take their own cars. A more expensive bus service like Uber's probably isn't going to taking much ridership away from public buses, but rather give middle-class people more options, so maybe they don't need a second car. And again, bus systems are remarkably scalable. Unlike things like subways and light rail. Routes and capacity are extremely flexible. Just because there are more transportation options, doesn't mean there's going to be a demise of city buses.