Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

>>> I'm curious, do other larger cities where commercial is concentrated into one area not have a private mini-bus(es)?

It turns out, there are some private buses. Take for example, Santiago, Chile. It succeeded in terms of profits and customer satisfaction. The problem is they do not survive. There comes a time when they don't pay sufficient "political capital" and get taken over (nationalized) by local politicians.

The result of the private bus system nationalization by socialists is macabre, at least this the Santiago case. First, the newly minted public bus service went from $60M USD profits, to massive $600M in losses [1] overnight. That is a negative 10x return. And service declined as well. [1] But that in itself is not a new story.

Now, fast forward ~12 years. The system bleeds so much money that the govt is forced to increase bus fares. The increase in fares activates the biggest riots the country has seen in decades [2]

Out of the riots, one young protester rises to the top. He comes with ideas of a new constitution. He is a young socialist leader. A certain Gabriel Boric [3], who had ran and won for president of University of Chile Student Federation against the leader of the Communist Party of Chile [4]

So now we come full-circle: A working private bus service was replaced by socialist politicians into a public bus system that hemorrhaged 10x more money than it earned previously in actual profits. The public bus funding crisis and subsequent fare hikes led to massive riots, which were a direct on-ramp for a socialist to ascend to power as president of Chile. In short, successful private local bus enterprise was replaced with a socialist bus system, which then proceeded to implode. This implosion of a socialist idea led to the spread of even more socialism, but now at a national level.

This chain of events from beginning to end, only took 20 years.

[1] https://www.econtalk.org/munger-on-the-political-economy-of-...

[2] https://www.scmp.com/news/world/americas/article/3033688/cha...

[3] https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-03-12/gabriel-...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_boric#Role_in_the_Esta...

Lots of places in the world run public bus systems - it seems by far the most common to me. It's hardly a thing of 'socialism' (always a bad word on HN).

I don't know about Chile, but I think the issue isn't so much the system being public, as in run by some form of government. Rather, the issue is in how "socialists" tend to run systems: everything is great until they run out of other people's money.

Now, I'm not in the "free market will solve all our woes" camp, either, especially when it comes to what we call "public service" in France. Over here, transit systems are facing a push from the EU bureaucrats for "opening up to competition". I'm bracing for the shit to hit the proverbial fan.

Sure, our national rail company is world-famous for being on strike all day every day and twice on Sunday. But, when they do run, they work fairly well and serve most of the country, including random, middle-of-nowhere towns. New companies coming in for the competition only serve the most profitable routes. Of course, I don't know all the laws, but I haven't heard of any obligation for new companies to serve the less profitable routes. So, the SNCF will have less money from the profitable routes to subsidize these lines. This means that either service will degrade, or the State will have to increase funding [0]. Now, I'm generally fine with paying (reasonable) taxes and whatnot, but I'm less fine with having to pay more taxes just so that some random foreign company can make money.

So, what will become of these people? When, at the same time, there's a push to restrict private vehicle ownership, and, especially, to limit access to town centers for older cars? Think these people can afford brand spanking new electric cars? Think again.

---

[0] I think the EU doesn't allow States to directly subsidize the rail company, it would be some form of unfair competition or similar. But the State is allowed to spend on social programs, so there could be some kind of program to help with transit, which, in the end, is the same thing: the people will have to subsidize service for less profitable routes because a chunk of the income from profitable ones has moved to a private company which doesn't care.

EU does allow states to subsidize transit (including trains) but the subsidies are subject to all sorts of regulations. They have to be of "public interest" and to not generate (excess) profits for the companies. At least in theory.

Look, if you're that uninformed, why bother commenting at all? Especially if you're in France, your takes on what constitutes socialism are weird to say the least.

SNCF operate those unprofitable routes in the middle of nowhere only because they get told and paid to do so by the state (Intercités) or the regions (TER). Private operators can bid to operate those routes too, and some do (soon Keolis, an SNCF subisdiary operated as a private company, will operate the first non-SNCF TER network).

Besides that, any operator with a license can apply to operate any route they deem profitable. And so far this has been a roaring success, with Trenitalia on Paris-Lyon (and now Marseille) and Paris-Milan being better and cheaper than SNCF. SNCF added low cost (Ouigo) trains on multiple popular routes mainly because they knew competition is coming (postponed by Covid), they probably wouldn't have bothered otherwise. This is a win-win-win for the average user.

The services that need to be maintained will be, regardless of who is the operator. Some of the profits of the private operators will pay for them (because they pay for network access, which covers the costs of the infrastructure + profit margin).

If one failed public transport project can be used as evidence against the viability of all public transport projects, will you accept my example of one failed privately owned transport project as evidence against the viability of all such projects?

In other words, why are you trying to use one cherry picked example of gross mismanagement to argue that all publicly run projects are doomed?

Yes, if you can name 1 example of a failed private transport project that led to

1) the biggest riots in 4 decades. 2) the requested resignation of all cabinet ministers 3) a new (socialist) constitution.

My point was not "you will die every time you play russian roulette" .

Because that's not the point. My point is, Santiago was playing it safe for many decades. Then they switched to russian roulette. Bad idea, and it showed in less than 1 decade (9 years, to be exact)

> the issue is in how "socialists" tend to run systems: everything is great until they run out of other people's money.

That would seem true of any organization other than a self-funded one. All corporations, banks, governments, etc. use investment by others (including taxpayers) and cease operations if that investment stops.

The bland generalization about 'socialists' isn't meaningful without some evidence and a specific falsifiable claim. We can make statements like that about anything.