Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by hoverkraft 4875 days ago
Interesting point about public transportation -- by creating a private bus system, tech companies are actively suppressing demand for better public transport between SF and the valley.
5 comments

If public transport were a better option, the google bus wouldn't be needed.
You do realize, of course, that all of these companies have offered to help pay for new bus routes, or are working on helping to build rail bridges, or helping to propose private/public partnerships on better light rail, or ...
Several people have alluded to this outreach elsewhere in the thread. I'd certainly believe it. Any links/references on what these companies have offered?
As I said elsewhere, most of this is known to employees of these companies, and privately mentioned, but not highly public.

This is done because otherwise, the towns get yelled at. Heavily. There are lots of interest groups involved in this kind of thing.

It's hard to make an argument with private/secret evidence.
It's not secret, just not very well known. As I said, you can usually find it in mountain view committee meeting minutes (for Google), cupertino council minutes (for Apple), etc.
You're assuming that a large share of those riders would take public transport, but most of them would probably drive, since that's what the large majority of people in SF who don't have access to a corporate bus do.

The bus provides an appealing (relative to the Caltrain) option that's appealing to people who could also easily afford to drive. (They're more convenient than the train or driving, to boot, whereas taking the train is much less convenient.) In doing so, they take tens of thousands of cars off the road each morning.

So why do we need the public to run mass transit in the first place?
You are perfectly welcome to start your own mass transit system (rail, bus, boat, helicopter, etc). Chances are that you'll quickly find that between he high capital investment, highly variable fuel prices, environmental requirements, and demand challenges that it will be really hard to turn a profit.

Hence, not very many private entities want anything to do with the market.

Well most cities have subsidised public transit, so it is pretty hard to compete, even if it were legal (in cities like my own it is 100% illegal).

Variable fuel prices doesn't really change any of the other private mass transit systems, like air, ship, and train (or even taxi?).

Environmental requirements are essentially irrelevant, especially compared the the fuel that will be saved.

High capital investment? I could start with a single van and one frequently travelled road. Or provide the service exclusively to one employer (ala Google style).

Demand challenges meet multi linear optimization. Our fire stations, electrical grids, gasoline stations, highways, office buildings, and eateries all have demand challenges.

Why would the profit be especially lower? If it were too low, entities would leave the market, if it were too high entities would enter the market.

Because it's a natural monopoly.
How are buses a natural monopoly? I could see trains with right of way issues, but buses on publicly accessible roads?
How can a natural monopoly have competition?
"Sorry, we can't make things better for you, because we can't make them better for everyone."