The thrilling world of transit privatization
People are happy to do free work for private companies. Especially stuff like this:
It’s driven in part by the understanding that local governments aren’t fully up to the task of policing, and don’t always act swiftly, efficiently, or in the public’s best interest. And it’s compounded by the techno-chauvinist conviction that collecting data from anyone and everyone is the first and most critical step to solving the world’s problems. Often, bureaucracies won’t even think about overhauling systems—like bike infrastructure—unless given compelling evidence. Many cities just don’t have the resources to collect that evidence themselves.
In the US we don’t like funding the government for this kind of work, is it either just doesn’t get done, or private industry gets to monetize it. For example, Uber and Lyft are useful for transporting senior citizens around:
“They appear very quickly, and they’re very helpful,” Mr. Gerstell said of his Uber drivers, who fold and stash his walker in the trunk. Summoning a taxi, his previous option, usually took 15 to 20 minutes; Uber arrives in three to five minutes and charges less, under $20, to drive him downtown.
…although, it gets expensive:
In the U.S.C. study, the typical trip cost $22; the cost per month, had users actually paid it, averaged $500. After the study, about a fifth of riders said they wouldn’t continue using ride-hailing, mostly because of cost.
Americans tend to assume that private industry can solve problems better than the government can, at least more efficiently. It’s a bad assumption to think that private industry is any better: health-care, anyone? Instead of paying taxes for services, we gleefully pay private industry instead.
Fining the EBITA in public policy
This means we’re giving policy over to private companies.
“Ride sharing” and “scooter” sharing companies are doing the transit work that government usually does - “should” be doing perhaps. To be that annoying person (I apologize, but here it comes): Europe does a great job taking care of transit. In cities at least.
Europe has high taxes, but to make a point that Americans can’t ever seem to wrap their heads around: you get what you pay for. The Uber’s and Mobikes of the world aren’t free either, you get what you pay for. These transit startups still operate in Europe, of course.
I’m suspicious that they have a viable, long term business model, and that their profitless existence is propped up by VC, PE, and now public market money. Maybe the reason the government can’t solve the transit problems like these private companies can is because it’s too expensive. (You could also argue that the private companies only “solve” transit problems for people with money, not all people.)
You could do an analysis of what it costs private vs public systems to move people around, I suppose. But you’d have to weight it by sustainability. If Uber and scooters are more efficient, but go out of business after investors tire of negative profits, you know, private transit doesn’t work.
Shaming, LLC
Apparently, policing transit violations like blocking bike lanes is another instance of private industry doing government work.
A potential problem here is that most transit policy - or city policy in general - isn’t intended to be followed 100% or the time.
Speed limits aren’t literal: you always drive five to ten miles over the posted speed limit or you’re considered a nuisance driver. Too slow and all that.
Laws that you can’t loiter or sit in public are just there as an excuse to boot vagrants - feel free to sit around the city eating your lunch if you wear button-down shirts and clean shoes.
Citizens won’t always apply nuance and norms. Do we really want to give a speeding ticket to everyone who drives over 45? Or shame them by publicly posting picture of them sitting idly to enjoy a sunny day?
I have no idea what cyclist policy is city to city. In Amsterdam, the general policy seems to be “get the fuck out of the way of cyclists, in all cases (except children and old people, as always - we’re not monsters, well, except if you’re a plain old adult in which case: DING DING you damn tourist)” to an absurd degree. I’m guessing in many places, cyclists are supposed to obey stop lights and lights. Yeah, fun concept. Hopefully there won’t be apps to shame people who ignore widely ignored rules like that.
Of course, the threat of cars to cyclists is asymmetric - cars will kill cyclists, not just dent the bike. So we should be more vigilant when it comes to cars…which is the point of the informal Amsterdam biking laws: bikes always win.
Crosswalks are another example of fluid laws. To be that person again: in the US cars don’t stop at cross walks. In fact, unless it’s a school zone (read: don’t kill kids with your car) or a car is at a red light, crosswalks are de facto a nuisance…in the US. If there’s no stop light, walkers learn to wait for cars to pass before using a crosswalk. In Amsterdam it’s the opposite: cars stop for you at crosswalks and if you hesitate and don’t cross they get upset: if you wait for the cars, you’re the nuance.
And then there’s jay-walking, which is usually illegal but considered totally OK and used by everyone to get around.
Apps that shame transit violators probably won’t account for all this local convention. It certainly wouldn’t be profitable to hire local people across the world who knew the convention and add it to the app.
Policy, laws, and rules are fluid and convention based, per region. This creates big opportunities for bias to be sure, like no loitering laws. I’m not sure an app will capture all that nuance, and people eager to shame others certainly won’t. Maybe we also need apps that take pictures of people who adhere to the law instead of the norms who are taking pictures of others to shame them: the busy body app.
If you thought government worked well (that is, you’re not an American), you could say that government IT should create these apps too, even being a slow follower by adding features from private apps. Or you could just give these companies cash. We subsidize all sorts of private services by bailing them out when needed already like banking, airlines (meanwhile in Europe), and car manufacturing, so why not for better people moving?
Alternatively, just stay with me here, you could just get back to the basics of good transit planning at the local level instead of giving control to global-focused, exit-driven enterprises. That seems a lot less fun.
Anyhow, more broadly, these transit and policing-by-shame apps are an ongoing experiment in government privatization. Maybe it’ll work this time!
Original programming
I look at a recent Wipro survey in organization’s digital transformation progress. It seems like they’re more focused on improving what they have than innovating new businesses.
Relevant to your interests
UK digital banks forecast to grow 170%, from 13m to 35m customers over the next 12 months; JPMC alone has 62m accounts, but hey, like, Disruption and stuff! They also say the bank startups are loosing an average of £9/customer. There’s always lock-in. Morgan thinks Google will make $11bn off ads in Google Maps by 2023, so, of course Forrester wants to warn you about lock-in. Business buyers do most of their research online, just like the rest of us. Artists have always had to hustle.. The workflow for book writing…is complicated.. Using WASP American culture for brand-feels is getting dodgy, and there really are yoga pants with a holster. NPS is a good way to measure future growth., while sentiment/satisfaction rates present feels.“incomprehensible and unnecessary”. Software is eating your shoes.. Adding auto-pay drives a “40% jump in ecommerce revenue almost overnight.” “This would allow us to develop a store which can be located anywhere and is open 24 hours a day”.