I would expect that anyone who has lived in a city with good, clean, affordable, basic, high quality mass transit looks on that privilege quite fondly. Compared to most (awful) systems in the US having once known such a system and now dealing with what much of the US has to offer will be either rage inducing or depressing (or both).
https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/chariot-private-bus-startup... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_Transit
These sorts of casual dismissals assume that the underlying technological landscape doesn't change, and that all organizations execute identically on product. Neither assumption holds true.
The primary reason we use large buses rather than e.g. minivans is that it amortizes the cost of the driver over more people. If it weren't for that buses would be less efficient because they're very often not completely full and to be completely full in most cases requires a larger vehicle to travel more miles.
What you really want is, effectively, car pools. Someone was already going there and they just take on more passengers, so there is no separate driver you have to pay.
But Uber already has this. It's called "driver destinations." You tell it you're driving to work, it gives you passengers near you who want to go near there. You make some extra money on a trip you were making anyway and now your car has five people in it instead of one.
Is the problem just that people don't know this?
> The primary reason we use large buses rather than e.g. minivans is that it amortizes the cost of the driver over more people. If it weren't for that buses would be less efficient because they're very often not completely full and to be completely full in most cases requires a larger vehicle to travel more miles.
> What you really want is, effectively, car pools. Someone was already going there and they just take on more passengers, so there is no separate driver you have to pay.
> But Uber already has this. It's called "driver destinations." You tell it you're driving to work, it gives you passengers near you who want to go near there. You make some extra money on a trip you were making anyway and now your car has five people in it instead of one.
> Is the problem just that people don't know this?
The problem is also insurance. Namely, mine doesn't cover ride shares, and here in Canada at least, most don't (unless you pay extra).
That seems kinda fair? Commercial ride sharing implies more miles driven under different (or at least increased) motivations to get there fast, and regardless of profit motives having more people in the car increases potential payout if something happens. It naively seems like that's a plausible correct increase in cost.
Only if they're thinking one dimensionally.
Your theory is this guy is going to take on four extra passengers, so now he has to go pick them up and drop them off, which will cause him to drive e.g. 50% more miles.
But now those other four passengers don't have to drive themselves. You're not going from 100 miles to 150, you're going from 500 miles to 150. That's going to reduce the number of collisions and therefore insurance claims.
So from a policy perspective, you want people not to be charged extra for this, even before considering the reduction in congestion and pollution. You might even want to offer a discount.
The exception for a selfish insurer would be if all the other drivers are insured by some other insurance company. But if we're talking about a rule set by the government or followed by every insurer then that doesn't matter. Some of your driver's passengers will be on the other insurance company and vice versa so it's a wash.
But, there’s infrastructure to support it - parking & HOV lanes.
Having a bus take a known route through important routes that allow you get to a stop and board a bus within <10 minutes without even having to know what time it is is really important for people to start relying on the bus system.
With that, even if the public transport takes slightly longer, not having to actively drive (in traffic) and find parking makes it much better. Now you use the time to read/think/mindlessly scroll through your phone on your way, or even be a bit dizzy on the way back.
I think that adding buses is not enough to reduce car traffic. Probably car-oriented cities are already organized in a way that driving is "needed" often. Cities with public transport make walking amenable, often fun and relaxing.
I know you haven't thought deeply and this is just an internet forum post, but how do you address:
1) Many riders don't have smartphones
2) How do casual riders know which vehicle to get on?
3) If a profitable route is found, how do you prevent companies from cutting under each other, cost wise? If you think public transit is uncomfortable, can you imagine what it would be like if there was a profit incentive?
4) how do you regulate safety standards and driver training?
5) public transit can afford to be flexible and not collect fares sometimes. You think private for profit companies will let folks skip paying a fare?
Etc etc etc. There are many, many practical reasons why it's much less efficient and desirable to have a number of private companies fighting over a natural monopoly.
In Sweden, it's been privatized for quite a while (since the 1990s) with substantial cost savings and service improvements. See https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2010/03/03/in_socialist_s...
In your points you assume privatized = unregulated, but nothing in the modern world is unregulated. You also assume privatized = not publicly funded. In other words, all of your points are strawmen and don't apply to modern privatization efforts.
In fact even in states that have public transportation, what they do is typically create an authority which is a GSE -- government sponsored enterprise -- to run the infrastructure. The vast majority of port, rails, etc are run by GSEs. The difference between a GSE style approach and privatization is that the GSE is awarded a monopoly for all routes that never changes. That creates a lot of disincentives for good performance and cost efficiency.
The rationale of privatization is that you let private businesses bid for contracts for fixed periods of time -- rather than just awarding a permanent contract for all routes to the GSE.
> I know you haven't thought deeply and this is just an internet forum post, but how do you address:
Ouch. I'd suggest that you could think some more about this issue as well.
https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/samtrans-ondemand-...
[0] https://www.translink.ca/rider-guide/transit-accessibility/h...
The big downside of these systems is that you must reserve your route at least 30 minutes in advance, so the bus company can plan the most efficient route. I think they're mainly used by (and exist for) people who have no other options.
I imagine a fleet of buses directed by sophisticated scheduling and navigation algorithms.
Users select a destination and pick up point, along with an arrival time. Discounts for ordering 1 day early to aid with scheduling. Pay extra to have the algorithm favor a shorter travel time for you.
System makes dynamic smart routes for buses to get people to where they want to go. Make it good at predicting arrival times so people can rely on it.
Seems like such an obvious next step for the whole uber/app-based-transport model. Not sure why nobody has tried it yet.