Hacker News Reader

Comment by dogman144 | Hacker News Reader

- 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!

View on HN

> 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.

> 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?

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_...

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://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43980845

The government has massive advantages when competing against Uber, namely that it gets to design the infrastructure and subsidize the system, so I would be unsurprised if Uber's efforts failed. That said, the government has historically failed to innovate in mass transit, so I hope Uber is allowed to proceed, and I look forward to seeing what happens.

One entity has a public purpose to provide effective public transport across a wide area with different routes of variable profitability. The other has a goal of claiming the profitable routes and ignoring the non profitable ones.

I just don't follow. There is no "claim"; the municipality can run on the "profitable" routes, too. They don't have to turn a profit, though, so they can always undercut Uber (unless Uber intends to use their previous strategy of taking losses on each ride until the competitor goes out of business, and I don't know that any city would stand for it). So, then, the only reason to use Uber's routes is because they're more comfortable or direct. However, in that case, they're obliged to charge more per passenger, at a rate approaching the cost of a private Uber ride.

Maybe their goal IS to run city busses out of business. Maybe they're about to FAFO.

> the municipality can run on the "profitable" routes, too

Hell, the municipality can wait to see if it works, and if it does, launch a public competitor.

Obviously it depends on the municipality, but in the UK for example, there's a (IMO deeply misguided) view that public transport should be cost neutral. That is, the bus services in a city, say, should not be subsidised. This is to the point that it is actually illegal for city councils to run a bus services. The private contractors are consistently pushing against their minimal service obligations in areas that are less profitable.

> 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?

One, the technology already works. If I visit Dallas or Philadelphia, I already have the app. Getting set up (and familiarised) with each city's app as a visitor is a friction.

Two, smell. This is absolutely classist. But Uber will probably do a better job keeping someone who hasn't bathed in two weeks out of their system than the public bus system. We could wish upon a star and poof away class structure in America. Or we could admit that running Uber shuttles between busses increases the system's throughput with minimal downside.

Three, flexibility. These shuttles will automate before any union-controlled public bus system in America has a chance to.

It's not just classist. It's deeply obnoxious looking down on your fellow man. Shame on you. People that have views like yours do not deserve to live in a society where all the shit jobs are done by lowly paid other people. You should have to clean your own sewers and repair your own roads and look after your own public parks, and all the thousand and one jobs that just happen by those people that might end up smelly as a result.

> 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

City governments generally have stricter requirements for whom they have to service. Private companies can fire their pathological customers more easily.

> only because of social stigma and classism.

Also low density makes public transit less accessible, requires mode shifts, and, of course, the time cost of public transit vs cars.

So essentially that buses need to have higher fares in low density areas? I'm sure Uber fixed-route shuttles will cost many times more. It's hard to imagine a fixed-route shuttle making much more sense in a low density area than buses logistically.

Unfortunately that means low income folks who can't afford 5-10x higher daily fare (and I think that's a decent guess) are excluded from living there. But sure, if we assume a public transit system should be profitable (and I personally disagree with that) you'd end up unable to service expensive to reach areas.

I concede that's a rock and hard place situation though.

What I can see as an upside is that if Uber's brand lets them short circuit the classism and normalize not using a car all the time. That's also a prerequisite for a healthy bus system, generally you have to build the transit and make it reliable before expecting people to stop driving cars, people have to be able to reliably get around. So if it makes people feel secure in not owning one, when public bus routes are added they'll actually have riders and not get discontinued after a month trial.

> You're likely right, but I suspect only because of social stigma and classism.

No, our cities are extraordinarily poorly designed.

They're built in such a way that the only way to get around in a cost-effective and time-effective way is by taking a private vehicle.

Here in Dallas, TX, we have the DART and it's pretty expansive. But the city is huge and sprawling - Dallas is still basically a suburb pretending to be a city. A typical 20 minute drive is going to be an hour on the DART. There just isn't enough density to make train and bus stops make sense in almost all US cities.

Why would that favor fixed-route shuttles operated by a private company? I agree that transit is hard, but it sounds like the only advantage Uber has is the ability to charge much higher fares than the public would ever allow for buses.

No? I agree with you about the layout favoring personal vehicles of course.

NYC’s newer bus lane approaches and congestion pricing findings counter this.

Also, you’re measuring pub transit by its economic sustainability. Pub sector services are not judged by this, nor should they be. See my OP.

> NYC’s newer bus lane approaches and congestion pricing findings counter this

Could you clarify which this? (And point to the source? I’m a big fan of congestion pricing.)

Would also note that my “largely” is “largely” mostly to exclude New York. Public transit works in Manhattan, and is uniquely successful in the New York metro area [1].

[1] https://www.moneygeek.com/resources/car-ownership-statistics...

There is very little that’s unique about NYC’s ability to build a great public transit system, other than it is a uniquely very hard place to do it, and run by a uniquely crooked city govt.

So, if somehow NYC could do it, what’s everyone else’s reasoning for not? To tip some cards - an obscene amount of lobbying from your local car dealer baron, if you’re in Nashville (for example)

> very little that’s unique about NYC’s ability to build a great public transit system

Have you been to New York?

We’re uniquely dense, rich and collectivist. We have a long and proud history of public transit and a culture that doesn’t put social cachet on vehicle ownership. That’s entirely different from the rest of America.

> if somehow NYC could do it, what’s everyone else’s reasoning for not?

New York’s government is larger, and has a larger remit, than many countries. More practically: they haven’t.

> obscene amount of lobbying from your local car dealer baron, if you’re in Nashville (for example)

This isn’t being launched in Nashville.

Ya and it’s also granite on swamp, with significant cost multipliers to get anything built. Latter is a literal statement, engineering bids have geoloc multipliers for costs.

To your later point, I’d love to see some data on why modern city states are the only ones able to build public transit.

As a Ny’er, I stand by my point that it’s crooked as heck. Not sure how you could spend any time under an Adams or Giuliani admin and think otherwise, to barely scratch the surface. Tammany hall anyone?

Lastly - you’re a NYer and saying pub transit is untenably uncomfortable Metronorth isn’t too bad and has new cars within the last decade. Amtrak is similar.

> it’s also granite on swamp, with significant cost multipliers to get anything built

We're still talking about busses, right?

If we're pivoting to subways, the granite isn't why building subways in New York is expensive. It's one part the existing density of the city and nine parts the usual American permitting hell [1].

> I’d love to see some data on why modern city states are the only ones able to build public transit

Fixed costs scale with distance (not area--routes are 1D) serviced. Revenue potential scales with area around stops. (And drops non-linearly as travel time for potential customers increases from each stop.) Latency and travel time scale inversely with number of stops.

Put it together and you need revenue per stop to cover the cost of, ideally, the distance halfway to the next stops. Herego, density reigns supreme [2].

> you’re a NYer and saying pub transit is untenably uncomfortable

I said busses are uncomfortable. Trains are fine. But you're not going to get an LIRR and subway system working sustainably in Dallas, Baltimore or even Chicago--everyone already owns a car, which makes the marginal cost of driving oneself uncompetitive with public transit.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...

[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259019822...

> uniquely dense, rich and collectivist

And yet on the list of North America transit systems by ridership[0], while New York City takes the top spot, every other city in America loses first to Mexico, then to Canada.

I can't speak on Mexico with any authority, but telling me multiple cities in Canada are more dense and financially well-off than every other city in America is more than a little shocking.

Telling me the (allegedly, but very publicly and loudly) Christian country is more collectivist than both Canada and Mexico is odd, unless we take a very cynical view of what it means to be Christian in America

> doesn’t put social cachet on vehicle ownership

> This isn’t being launched in Nashville

Yes, the point is that the social cachet around vehicle ownership is marketing, pushed by car dealerships (among other institutions)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_rapid_t...

> Telling me the (allegedly, but very publicly and loudly) Christian country is more collectivist than both Canada and Mexico is odd

OP mentioned Nashville. I wasn’t considering places outside America. Within America, New York is unique in those aspects. As a global city, it’s strikingly inefficient.

> point is that the social cachet around vehicle ownership is marketing, pushed by car dealerships (among other institutions)

Sure. Whatever. I disagree, but that’s irrelevant. It’s the field we’re given to play. We can complain about the field or we can play to win.

Lots of problems could be solved if wishing upon a star that people were different did anything. It doesn’t. So we’re left with real solutions and pipe dreams. If one side offers only the latter, particularly if conspiratorially tinted, you go with the other option.

>Have you been to New York?

Rude. I'm a lifelong New Yorker and nothing about your posts seem reasonable or made apparent by anything that's just "obvious" about being in new york. There's also great bus transit in Queens... but you don't mention that. You just continuously suggest all your points are self evident.

> There's also great bus transit in Queens

Sure. If you don’t see why Queens is uniquely well situation to be served by such a system, particularly in comparison to e.g. Nashville, I’m going to be similarly surprised.

Yes, manhattan is the only special place in the country that can have public transit. Oh wait yeah, except for Queens! No, they aren't particularly alike and yes it is true that plenty of cities outside of the US have great public transit, despite not having what the special Manhattan and/or Queens sauce, but yes... Nashville.

As a former New Yorker, I’d like to hear what you think makes NY government uniquely corrupt. It doesn’t seem any more or less corrupt than anywhere else I’ve lived in the US.

Well, with a bit of sarcasm/exaggeration added, it’s been a while since FBI seized a mayor’s phone and indicted half his staff.

Fair but also hardly fair since Adams had nothing to do with building NYC transit infrastructure.

Putting aside your attempt at humor through exaggeration, I don’t see any evidence at all in this discussion that the city is uniquely corrupt. Generically corrupt? Sure I can live with that.

It has? This literally happened to Oakland, CA (a few transit stops away from SF) months ago where the ex-mayor and a cadre of her backers were indicted by the FBI. I think you've been in NYC for too long if you think NYC is uniquely bad for transit due to corruption and geo factors. The Bay Area has hills and mountain ranges everywhere and has a literal ocean on its West side. Chicago is built along the Great Lakes and has ridiculous wind gusts and wind chill in the winter.

Most older US cities were built along rivers and other natural features because rivers are flat and most natural features are opening/closing points for trade routes between areas. Newer sunbelt cities are probably the ones that don't have these issues because they were built in less challenging geography.

> Most older US cities were built along rivers and other natural features because rivers are flat and most natural features are opening/closing points for trade routes between areas.

People build along rivers for (secondarily) the water supply and (primarily) the cheap shipping.

Hizzoner aside, I don’t think NYC’s government is markedly more crooked than any other American municipality.

(NYC news is often national news, so there’s a double effect: transparency is a deterrent, and transparency makes the city look uniquely corrupt. If, say, Dallas had the same kind of persistent national coverage as NYC does, I’d expect to see roughly the same stuff.)

NYC has a markedly more pronounced history with organized crime - including that extant sort which is associated with the financial industry - and the municipal culture that develops to deal with it. Of course, this implies that now that Dallas is getting a stock exchange, your claim might become salient in a decade or two.

Emphasis on history: NYC very famously broke its organized crime groups in the 1980s and 1990s. It's what made Giuliani famous before he became a politician[1].

(I would hazard a demographic claim around organized crime: just about any mid-sized city with large suburbs almost certainly has more per-capita organized crime than NYC does. You just don't hear about it because most of it is of the "extortion for trash pickup" variety, not the "Murder, Inc." variety.)

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia_Commission_Trial

I took pains to mention the extant nature of organized financial criminality which yet influences NYC (and state, and national) politics. Wall Street gets their way a lot when they shouldn't, and it's because government officials and elites are happy to pledge fealty to money over law.

As for Giuliani, he himself is a mobster; he's facing the same RICO charges he leveled at crime bosses as a prosecutor. I think this speaks to my point, which is that NYC corruption vis a vis organized crime didn't go away, it just became part of the institution.

I don’t think Wall Street is responsible for that much corruption at the city level. I agree about the federal level, but at the city level it’s probably mostly real estate with NGOs as a close second.

(But again, I don’t think it’s been evidenced that NYC is uniquely corrupt, which was the original claim.)

> As for Giuliani, he himself is a mobster; he's facing the same RICO charges he leveled at crime bosses as a prosecutor.

Except that the man is nowhere close to the halls of power in NYC, and hasn’t been so for three decades!

He is of course a crook, but that doesn’t evidence NYC being corrupt in 2025. It evidences Giuliani being a crook at the federal level.

> I’m a big fan of congestion pricing.

Of course you are. You're rich.

If the congestion pricing was based on the pre-tax income percentage it'd be even better! Right now these are private lanes for the rich and desperate.

The model works in Europe. Why double down on the thing that makes everything in the US suck (unless you're rich) and privatize more?

Where privatization has been done in Europe service has largely worsened. Shouldn't be surprising since these services are fundamentally a natural monopoly.

> The model works in Europe. Why double down on the thing that makes everything in the US suck

New York's subways were built by private companies. So were America's railroads.

> Where privatization has been done in Europe service has largely worsened

Counterpoint: Japan.

I would like you to read up on the railroads, and WHY private companies built them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_land_grants_in_the_Un...

The government gave them over 700 000km2 of land as an incentive. In case that number means nothing to you: That is France. Or Texas.

A reminder to all that thanks to this enormous subsidization of the railroads, we had one of the best railroad networks in the world, and Americans considered it normal to travel huge distances long before the car.

These rights of way were also essential to building the first information superhighway: The telegraph network.

America has always built great infrastructure, when people in office are willing to spend dollars for the public good.

Or when they could see a way to direct that spending into their own wallet.

> government gave them over 700 000km2 of land as an incentive

Absolutely. I’m not arguing for the superiority of private enterprise. Just that we shouldn’t be biased to one model versus another, particularly when it comes to building versus operating infrastructure. It’s eminently true that this infrastructure was built by private companies. Same is true for what Uber is proposing. The lesson is that there needs to be public guidance, not that we should say no to protect bus drivers or whatnot.

> New York's subways were built by private companies. So were America's railroads.

Didn't this cause a lot of problems, which is why they were eventually consolidated under a public authority?

I do find interesting and cool that private urban transport seems to work well in Japan and do wonder what's the system around this private ownership to have it work as well as it does.

> Didn't this cause a lot of problems, which is why they were eventually consolidated under a public authority?

They went bankrupt. So the city bailed them out. Then New York City went bankrupt. So the state bailed us out.

>New York's subways were built by private companies

That's not even remotely true. Which I only found out two paragraphs into this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_New_York_City_S... because it was apparent to me that you leaving out the rest of the story (i.e. why the city took over the subway) was misleading.

> That's not even remotely true

It absolutely is. The lines were mostly built with private resources. Before 1913, the city didn’t own the lines. (IND didn’t open until ‘32.)

The lines’ burial happened at the behest of the state. But none of it was cleanly public or private. My point is private or public involvement shouldn’t be an automatic DQ. Public institutions can be efficient. Private ones socially useful.

It's a bit disingenuous. What of the subway was built before 1913 that is even relevant to discussion today? Even before 1913 it was enacted by the legislature. I just find all of your posting here so shy of the relevant truths as to be disingenuous.

> American cities have largely failed at making bus rapid transit economically sustainable and comfortable for the broader population

I don't know that's true at all. Buses generally work well wherever I take them, and they are widely used in cities around the country. In many cities I can just walk to the nearest corner, or maybe another block, and catch a bus whichever way I'm going. I often don't even need to know the routes.

IME a certain socioeconomic class is unfamiliar with using them, with how to use them (a barrier to adoption), and with sharing public transit with others (I don't know about you). Didn't some SV billionaire (Zuckerberg? Musk?) once say something about people should be afraid of psychopaths on public transit? Many disparage any public service, automatically assuming they are incompetent or substandard.

> Privately-operated buses on city bus lanes seems fine?

Public transit needs a network effect: When more people use it, there are more buses and trains and they come more often.

> IME a certain socioeconomic class is unfamiliar with using them

This is absolutely part of the problem.

> Public transit needs a network effect: When more people use it, there are more buses and trains and they come more often

My point is the public resource is the bus lane. Not the metal running on it. Giving the public busses a monopoly on that resource may be worth playing with.

Public transit could use a lower barrier to adoption. I think people familiar with it - myself included - forget how uncertain it is for the first time - is the bus late or not coming? was it early? - and all the unstated conventions, etc.

Interesting about the lanes. But that metal has a large capital cost, training, etc.; we can't add and decrease capacity on demand like cloud computing resources. Maybe contract bus operation - including the metal - to multiple contractors and when customer satisfaction is low, give the route to another contractor.

> If cities won’t permit something like this, it warrants asking if public resources are better used turning those bus lanes into standard ones.)

Undoing the only solution to a healthier city and it's citizens because it was not an immediate success is not the answer. If you don't fix the problems, cities will get more and more congested. An additional lane will not solve that problem, just postpone the inevitable. There only one way out of that problem and that is getting people to use public transport and their feet.

Ha! Everyone fails to make bus rapid transit comfortable and sustainable. That is the point - it’s publicly subsidized discomfort that gets you there. Along with everyone else more or less on time. In an urban environment.

Along. With. Everyone. Else.

It’s a public good. I’ve lived in both the EU and the U.S. extensively using buses and the argument that “American cities have failed” is just such a load of crap. I found buses just as tolerable in both including places like suburban Cupertino. They’re not supposed to be “sustainable” because they’re a vital service same as the water in pipes. And they’re not supposed to be “comfortable” if the frame of reference used are AC/sleek private vehicles.

The problem and the solutions have not changed. The only thing that has are the GPS enabled pocket computers we started carrying around. The GPS bit allowed for a real optimization. But the pocket computers also started feeding us with doubts about shit that works just fine.

> they’re not supposed to be “comfortable” if the frame of reference used are AC/sleek private vehicles

Sure. But that means you have no buy in from the latter. If you add a shuttle service, with a forward-looking eye to self-piloted vehicles, you increase use and potentially also revenues to reïnvest in uncomfortable busses.

This notion that revenues are a problem for busses is also not universal, even in the US. In the PNW the bus services in the city I am in and nearby are free - no fares charged. Their revenue is elsewhere (note that I'm not saying ridership is unimportant, but if you're deriving revenue from ads which then ties to miles driven, then it becomes less important).

> Why? Charge a use fee.

Who is paying for the maintenance of the extra bus lanes (or creating them in the first place), or the extra maintenance on the other lanes which get heavier use since some have been set aside as dedicated lanes.

Taxpayers.

So yeah, taxpayers funding Uber.

I'd rather fund public transport.

> 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.

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.

> I'm not surprised that private services are going to fill the gaps here.

They’ll only serve profitable routes.

> 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-...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

kindly, what would make you believe that the private, highly-likely-to-ignore-or-skirt-regulation ride sharing industry would produce a mass-transit product that remains price/service-competitive in an american city?

i have zero trust in the private sector to do anything that won't turn into a gated community, become abandoned, or rely on labor that they won't exploit worse than what they already do with "the gig economy".

we can have the private sector provide public good but we don't have the regulatory infrastructure in place to enforce that, and the more we strengthen the private sector at the expense of the public sector, the further we get away from that, and the closer we get to Biff's America.

> kindly, what would make you believe that the private, highly-likely-to-ignore-or-skirt-regulation ride sharing industry would produce a mass-transit product that remains price/service-competitive in an american city?

Your question very unkindly builds in a biased premise, namely that "highly-likely-to-ignore-or-skirt-regulation". Also, ride sharing killed taxis by essentially working around a ridiculous pile of regulations, and good thing too, and we should all be thankful for that. So right off the bat your reply is phony. You were not being kind.

But I'll answer it anyways: I gave you an existence proof that such a product can exist. Buenos Aires is even an American city in a way :) Sure, it's not proof that such a thing can work here, but then too no U.S. city has tried to put together a public-private public transportation partnership like Buenos Aires', so in fact we can't know until we try, but your attitude is one of the reasons we can't even try.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak...

https://www.vice.com/en/article/uber-became-big-by-ignoring-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Uber references over 100 articles of Uber's behavior. This is not bias; this is fact.

First of all, that's facts about one company. Second of all, ignoring bad laws (I'm speaking generally here, not specifically about any Uber-related cases) is a very good thing since bad laws often don't change at all without disobedience.

I'm all in favor of Buenos Aires style public transportation. We should adopt that in the U.S.

There's a world of difference between civil disobedience and corporations breaking laws and regulations for profit.

Idk about you but I wanted the taxi regulations gone. I could never have achieved that via civil disobedience, but corporations succeeded by working in the nooks and crannies of the law to the point where lawmakers could no longer maintain their corrupt taxi regimes, and I say hip hip hooray to that!

Uber achieved their success by cheating - they went billions of dollars deeper into debt each year to subsidize your rides, because their business model doesn't work. On top of this, they operating by exploiting gig workers who, sometimes, earn effective negative wages.

Make no mistake - Uber did not pioneer anything. They merely developed new wages to exploit you, the business model of Venture Capital, and their workers.

One thing to remember is that a lot of streetcar companies were started by developers who wanted to make their developments convenient travel from downtown. Many of them would have needed to consolidate or shift to remain financially viable.

The thing which killed transit was the massive subsidies for private car ownership and especially coding transit riders as poor/black. Cities didn’t kill transit because they loved traffic, it happened because much of the tax base moved out to the suburbs and generations of city planners prioritized private car travel over transit at almost every turn.

> 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.

> 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.

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

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.

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.

You only need the scale in car centric places, where you can externalize every cost to the customers.

I misused 'profit' the second time - I should have said revenue.

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

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.

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.

A transit lane with excess capacity is a feature, not a bug. It provides slack to recover from issues.

Slack is good, too much slack is wasteful.

Charge them their full amortized share of the road, raise rates if congestion becomes a problem.

Sure - if you do it by passengers and not by vehicle count. Busses are hilariously more efficient at moving people.

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.

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.

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.

I have extensive experience with the bus systems in three major US cities and none of them are like that.

> delayed at every stop by a line of people fumbling for how to shove crumpled dollar bills into the machine

In my US city, not a megalopolis, but a state capital, there's no machine to shove money into, because the bus system doesn't charge anyone to ride.

Most of the spaces in front of fire hydrants sit empty, too.

Taxis are able to use bus lanes in EU too. And it's completely ok to do that.

- Uber serves routes that are difficult to reach

- Those routes hit underserved communities (read: low income)

- The $2 service becomes $10 after some loss leading, which is what Uber literally did.

- The lanes aren’t fully occupied. The public sector doesn’t turn a profit. The… (see my OP).

- Comparing Europe, the land of GDPR, tech company regs and fines, and its general suspicion of private sector, to the US, which is basically none of that, is a unique take.

>Comparing Europe, the land of GDPR, tech company regs and fines, and its general suspicion of private sector, to the US, which is basically none of that, is a unique take.

Here in America we fight nail and teeth for our right to be screwed over.

> Comparing Europe, the land of GDPR, tech company regs and fines, and its general suspicion of private sector, to the US, which is basically none of that, is a unique take.

It's a commonplace take. They don't have to be exactly the same - those are the peer countries of the US. People find a way to dismiss the comparisons because they have no argument: Clearly there's a better, proven way to do it.

> Why would someone pay $10 for the Uber service, meanwhile the local one is just $3?

In this scenario Uber would give endless promos pricing the trip at $2.90 until they’ve degraded the public bus service to a level where no one wants to use it. Then they jack up the prices.

> In this scenario

So based entirely on a hypothetical that didn’t pan out with Uber’s original services.

Are you implying Uber isn't more expensive than when it first started? Because it is.

> Are you implying Uber isn't more expensive than when it first started? Because it is

Of course not. I'm saying (not implying) that Uber never jacked up its rates beyond what the competition, including taxis, charge.

Aren't you all agreeing then - when there's competition, such as public transit, Uber will keep its prices competitive. When there's no competition ...

> when there's competition, such as public transit, Uber will keep its prices competitive. When there's no competition

The when is a bogeyman. It's never happened. We're trading present benefits against a hypothetical downside with easy remedies if it appears.

As I mentioned in another comment, Project 2025 calls for cuts to public transit and instead giving funding and subsidies to private companies like Uber or Lyft to provide transit. Republicans already hate funding transit so how do these easy remedies appear to you? If transit was properly funded, Uber wouldn't have done this to begin with.

> If transit was properly funded, Uber wouldn't have done this to begin with

It’s not. That’s not Republicans’ fault, there isn’t a great reason for West Virginians to subsidise San Francisco rail.

West Virginia is a welfare state and the 3rd most dependent on federal funding. California actually gives more money than it gets from the fed. Most red states aren't subsidizing anything, they are the ones living off subsidies. Transit funding at the federal level supports ALL states. Projects in red states are being built due to the transit infrastructure bill passed under Biden.

> there isn’t a great reason for West Virginians to subsidise San Francisco rail

There's not a great reason for Washingtonians to subsidize Florida's hurricane insurance, but here we are...

Sure there is, such as cooperation, care for others, responsibility for others. Why should those things stop at the West Virginia border? Why fund public goods in West Virginia? Maybe we should fund none at all, have no responsibility for anyone but ourselves.

Wow. That is basic economics and I see it all the time in the marketplace. Wait until the competition cancels your favorite air route and see what happens to the prices.

What are the easy remedies? Restart public transit?

> That is basic economics and I see it all the time in the marketplace

Yes, it’s a market failure. The solution is not to never attempt anything that might result in market failure.

> Wait until the competition cancels your favorite air route and see what happens to the prices

Bad comparison. The locality controls the airport. Not the route. Not the destination. With Uber, the locality controls the pick-up and at least significant parts of the route. (There also isn’t any federal preëmption of ride share regulation the way there is in the air.)

> What are the easy remedies? Restart public transit?

In the event Uber bankrupts the bus system and also Lyft and Waymo? Tax them. Increase use fees. Revoke bus lane privileges.

Again, this is a bogeyman. It’s never actually happened in urban transportation in the modern era, particularly, never with Uber.

Your promise that the obvious economic outcome won't happen, and your insistance that it hasn't happened with Uber, isn't convincing. This is how markets and how aggressive business - particularly modern business - works.

(Also, regarding Uber, how many times have they been in a market with no competition?)

> In the event Uber bankrupts the bus system and also Lyft and Waymo? Tax them. Increase use fees. Revoke bus lane privileges.

What if Uber doesn't provide equitable service? How about hospitals getting shut down by for-profit owners, leaving communities without healthcare? Businesses chase profit and cut losses - not a good choice when you need equitable servcies.

Are you sure? Here in NYC Uber has pretty much entirely replaced yellow cabs and their prices are a hell of a lot higher than they used to be.

> Here in NYC Uber has pretty much entirely replaced yellow cabs

Yes for ride hailing [1]. If I recall correctly, Uber gets about 60% of that.

> their prices are a hell of a lot higher than they used to be

Inflation adjusted? And relative to TLC fares? I remember when taking a cab was a deal compared to Uber, but that hasn’t been the case for years.

[1] https://toddwschneider.com/dashboards/nyc-taxi-ridehailing-u...

Yea. Do you not remember when uber was subsidizing the fuck out of rides? Inflation is a bitch but there’s no way I was getting rides across all of Boston for 2 dollars back in the mid 2010s due entirely to inflation

> Do you not remember when uber was subsidizing the fuck out of rides?

Sure. I'm not saying Uber's costs didn't go up. I'm arguing they haven't gone up faster than the competition. They never cornered the market to jack up rates because they never had that much pricing power. They loss lead to get a seat at the table, not to buy the whole table.

> Here in NYC Uber has pretty much entirely replaced yellow cabs

Not the NYC I see. Plenty of cabs, can still hail one when I need one. Uber/Lyft require a longer wait, most of the time.

That's... exactly how uber's services work.

For what, 14 years straight they made a few hundred million dollars in the red every year?

It's the venture capitalists playbook. Don't bother designing a competitive product, just cheat and flood the market. When you're billions in debt you'll figure it out, hopefully.

They won't jack up the prices now the main price-jacking-up event has occurred: having to change the agreement with their contractors to give them employment-like benefits.

>They won't jack up the prices now the main price-jacking-up event has occurred

“I’ve made nough money already” said no one ever. Probably they won’t on the car service but there will be jacking-up room for the bus service.

In Buenos Aires the bus system is run by private companies. The buses are full, and they run way more often than the typical and pitiful once-every 20 or 30 minutes during rush hour rate that we see in the U.S.'s city run bus systems. You never have to wait long. You can buy small books with all the info you need to get from any one part of the city to any other using only buses.

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.

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).

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.

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

> - 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.

>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.

>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.

> 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.

Taxis typically don't need long-term parking at every location they visit. That makes them hugely different from personal vehicles.

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.

> Are taxis/ubers really better for the environment than a personal car?

Yes. They're more-closely monitored for emissions. Because they run through quicker, they're usually newer metal, which tends to be more efficient. And if you can get saturation as it is in New York, where car ownership decreases, you lose the massive footprint of manufacturing and distributing a private fleet of cars.

More-closely monitored for emissions by who? I would believe that some municipalities monitor taxi emissions, but I haven't heard of anything like this for Uber. Many states have emissions tests for private vehicles too.

I was just in DC and noted that the taxis were all at least 10-year old models. I specifically noticed many Ford Fusions, because I own one myself. Mine gets about 23.5mpg on average, and that's including lots of highway driving.

I think the reason NYC has so little car ownership is due more to the subway than taxis...

edit: Just found this report which suggests "A non-pooled ride-hailing trip is 47 percent more polluting than a private car ride": https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/Ride-Hailing...

> the reason NYC has so little car ownership is due more to the subway than taxis

It's a combination. Car ownership is lowest in Manhattan [1]. We're rich. And we're well served by subways and taxis. Not owning a car makes sense because you never have to compromise. If you planned, take the subway. If it's raining or you're in a rush, you have the option of a cab. (We also tax the living shit out of private parking. That helps.)

As a side note, the number of people I know who take the LIRR to the airport went up significantly after Uber came on the scene. Because suddenly getting to Penn or Grand Central wasn't the pain it used to be.

[1] https://www.hunterurban.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Car-L...

I've only been a tourist in NYC, but I've found that it's generally faster to take the subway (which tends to run frequently) than to wait for an Uber. Maybe taxis are faster - I've never hailed one!

> it's generally faster to take the subway (which tends to run frequently) than to wait for an Uber

It depends on where you are, where you're going and when it is. For the most part, yes, the subway tends to be faster the further you're going, unless you're in the netherlands between Brooklyn and Queens.

> This is mass transit - taxis and Uber are not

My point is the Ubers were complimentary with the mass transit. Absent Uber, those folks--myself included--would have taken a taxi to the airport.

I apologize, I misunderstood your point and thought I edited it quick enough, but you were faster!

That said, why did you need an Uber instead of a taxi to get to the station? To be clear, I'm not opposed to ride sharing full stop - I think they do solve some problems and help to reduce car ownership, which is a noble goal. But I am not convinced that they are better for the environment (i.e. emissions) than private vehicle ownership.

And I still believe that prioritizing ride hailing vehicles over mass transit (i.e. buses) on public roads will disincentivize mass transit on said roads. Rail is obviously not negatively affected as the infrastructure is not shared.

> in Manhattan, they are likely to be closer, but I'd guess that impact is more per time (stuck in traffic) than per mile

I don’t want to gamble on whether I’ll hail a taxi in time to make the train. And if I’ve spent a few minutes hailing such that it’s questionable if I’ll make the train, I’ll just gun for the airport.

> I am not convinced that they are better for the environment (i.e. emissions) than private vehicle ownership

If you can get people to not own a car, ridesharing wins hands over feet. In most of America, ridesharing just decreases private miles driven. There, the environmental impact is more mixed.

> prioritizing ride hailing vehicles over mass transit (i.e. buses) on public roads will disincentivize mass transit on said roads

I think anything that makes mass transit more accessible, or which pays its bills, is good. Because the default in most of the country isn’t busses. It’s private cars. If we get self-driving cars while busses are still on a legacy model, those systems will be shut down.

> Are taxis/ubers really better for the environment than a personal car?

They are worse. When they have no passengers, they still are driving around.

> When they have no passengers, they still are driving around

You're ignoring the environmental impact of parking. Also, Ubers by and large aren't aimlessly driving around. That's taxis. (Where TNCs fail is in their deadheading costs [1].)

[1] https://www.cmu.edu/ambassadors/december-2021/pdf/bloomberg_...

> You're ignoring the environmental impact of parking.

Interesting - what impact? Driving around looking for a space? Parallel parking wouldn't seem to be a problem, unless you're not very good at it. :)

> Ubers by and large aren't aimlessly driving around

They drive to me, which by itself increases their driving for my trip by ~~~~~50% (I have no idea). I suppose in Manhattan, they are likely to be closer, but I'd guess that impact is more per time (stuck in traffic) than per mile.

> what impact? Driving around looking for a space?

That. Plus desensitisation, requiring more driving in general.

> in Manhattan, they are likely to be closer, but I'd guess that impact is more per time (stuck in traffic) than per mile

Congestion charge. (And a lot of the traffic is caused by private cars. Hired cars move.)

> Are taxis/ubers really better for the environment than a personal car?

They are, although not by much.

And that's not counting the main source of pollution in an Uber car: the driver.

>Are taxis/ubers really better for the environment than a personal car?

Yes. They are part of general non-car transit. You would never build an entire public transit infrastructure on taxis, but they are a component of it. A person who doesn't need to own a car because they use taxis/ubers is a net benefit to the environment, and city congestion - not to mention limiting need for parking spaces.

> The goal is to get people into taxis/uber, buses, subways, bicycles ... basically anything except a car

This attitude is part of why public transit in America is failing.

Americans love their cars. We're not going to recondition that. Designing systems that are anti-car doesn't lead Americans to ditch their cars. It leads them to ditch public transit.

This shuttle is a good example. Shuttles running between busses increases throughput while decreasing latency. It increases the chances that I go to the bus station versus reflexively calling a car. If I have to look up a timetable, though, I'm not going to do that: I'll call a Waymo.

Another missed opportunity is RORO rail stock, where folks can take their cars on a family vacation on a train. We don't have it because the rail folks are all anti-car. As a result, their projects get cancelled.

i dont think its because the train people are anti-car. if anything more the converse. Amtrak in the US used to heavily advertise the auto-train. they still run it along the southeast coast.

> dont think its because the train people are anti-car. if anything more the converse

Train people aren't. Transit advocates, particularly in cities, have a tendency to be.

Attempting to vaguely level the playing field is not "anti-car". Nobody in the US is "anti-car".

The reality is that we have conceded such an absurd amount of money, space, safety, noise, you name it, to automobiles that even if we reeled that back 90% we'd still be squarely in the "pro-car" space.

On one side, you have one concession that we spend trillions of dollars subsidizing and spend the majority of all space in our country getting to work. And then, on top of that, it's the primary cause of death for multiple demographics. And we still subsidize it.

On the other side, you have something we don't put any money into.

> 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??

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.

Correct

*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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com