Have you actually looked at the cost breakdown of California HSR? This isn’t all going to contractors but to land acquisition, feasibility studies, parts and materials, etc etc.
I also don’t know where you get the notion that it is representative of public transportation in the US, which is by and large just bus services.
It's an example of how most US transit systems have completely lost the plot. There has been almost no change in the services offered despite smartphones totally changing how services could be offered. Transit systems would rather run empty buses on the same fixed routes than adapt a more efficient, Uber-like, system.
Most transit systems carry dozens of passengers per bus per hour. Fixed route services are more efficient than uber. I’m just having a conversation with your own personal biases at this point.
The major differences between uber and transit are technology yes, but also in the fact that it is a public service that is here to meet the needs of everyone. Uber doesn’t have to comply in the same manner with the civil rights act and the ADA, and it doesn’t have a unionized workforce, which in sum is as much if not more of an impact on the services provided than the technology aspects.
public transportation is a service, a public utility, not a business. it should not need to be profitable, and framing it terms of profit at all is wrong imo.
> it should not need to be profitable, and framing it terms of profit at all is wrong imo.
What is the right way to frame it? Total cost per passenger mile might be good. The transit systems that move the most people efficiently would do well on that metric.
public transit benefits the community/region more so than any individual benefit, so I don't think cost per passenger is appropriate either.
Sometimes basic science research funding is framed in terms of "this program generated $10 of economic activity for every dollar spent." Social programs sometimes measured this way too. The term for this escapes me at the moment, but I think it would be more useful?
>” Sometimes basic science research funding is framed in terms of "this program generated $10 of economic activity for every dollar spent."”
This type of cost-benefit analysis (or economic multiplier calculation) is also used to justify public subsidy of sports stadiums and the like. Unfortunately, these analyses always use overly optimistic assumptions, and fall victim to the broken windows fallacy.
It doesn't need to be a cash cow (and probably shouldn't be), but public transit should be able to break even because that is the only reliable signal that a service is providing enough value to justify its cost.
If they're breaking even then what "cost" is there to justify? That's a really roundabout way of saying that public transit doesn't deserve public financing.
Far less unprofitable than the road system. Gas taxes & tolls cover a far smaller percentage of road building & upkeep than bus fares cover of transit costs.
OP mentioned Uber's motivations, and you countered with workers' motivations.
Even admitting that, I'd be willing to bet that essentially no single Uber employee is working that job out of care for environment, or interest in having a healthy transportation system in their city. I know for a fact that's a consideration for many people who work for city transit agencies.
I'm sure many of the people who work there can care but the people who make the decisions only care about profit and if anything is decided that will eat into profit they will be overruled.
Uber is in the business of moving people around in exchange for money. They aren't a monopoly in any of the major markets they serve. It follows that profit is directly correlated with their quality of service and price.
Uber used a VC treasure chest to run at a multiple-billion dollar per quarter loss for years to run rivals out of business (while operating illegally in many market places).
Yes. Uber and Lyft have driven many taxi companies out of business. SF Yellow Cab and LA Green Cab are the two largest ones. Uber and Lyft ran at losses for years losing billions of dollars to keep prices low and drive people out of business.
They're providing a good. People have to part with money to use the good. The money someone is willing to pay is necessarily at worst exactly equal to the value they place on it. For instance, I may be willing to pay up to $5 for a slice of pizza, but it only costs me $3 so I get a surplus of $2.
That's basically how the market economy works. It's not controversial and it's why we in the industrialized world live in such affluence when compared to centrally planned systems or systems from the past.
I find these kind of comments like "corporation doesn't care" are lazy and boring. What's the point? It's a service, that looks pretty cool and is supplementing an often crappy public transportation system. And it won't cost taxpayers anything. In fact, it'll likely be subsidized by rich people who own Uber stock