8 replies

  1. In the case of Night School, they weren’t even backed by venture capitalists. It was one person’s idea to use school buses that weren’t being used during the night to bring late night owl services between SF and Oakland that SF MUNI couldn’t provide, for a reasonable price of $8 per ride or $15 per month.

    Leave it to government to shut down it down through layers of red tape and bureaucracy.

    If government can’t provide services that the people want (night owl services), whose to blame one entrepreneur to start his/her own service themselves? Why should government interfere and get in the way? Are they afraid of a little competition?

    The CPUC butting their noses into regulating transit (why? transit has nothing to do with utilities) is a fine example of government over-reach and over-regulation, creation of an artificial monopoly to protect their own interests, and exemplifies the maze of bureaucracies and red-tape involved that one needs to start their own business in California.

    What Night School has shown is that the same thing can happen here in Los Angeles. Metro faces budget problems, decides to cut services, some entrepreneur decides to run their own bus service on their own to fill in those gaps. Then the CPUC gets involved and says that person can’t do that.

    Who wins? Nobody.

    Solution? Government (CPUC) should stop interfering with startup companies that aims to offer mass transit solutions that municipal agencies cannot provide.

  2. “If rich and poor, black and white, don’t share the same commons — if they attend separate schools, live in separate neighborhoods, swim in separate pools, rely on separate transportation — then there’s little reason for them to mutually invest in any of these resources.”

    The alternative view is that government shouldn’t be interfering in people’s lives such as telling them which neighborhood they should all live in, which swimming pool they all have to go to, or what mode of transportation they have to get somewhere either, and neither should government have total monopoly over these areas either.

    If one were to use the swimming pool example, let’s take away all private pools in people’s backyards, shut down swimming pools in fitness clubs and water parks like Hurricane Harbor and Raging Waters, monopolize them that government should be the sole provider of swimming pool services all in the name of equality.

    Sorry, but if a person earns their own money to take a family trip to Hurricane Harbor or Raging Waters, and wishes to get their by their own car or what not, that’s their money so it’s up to them to decide to do with it, and certainly none of government’s business to tell them they can’t do all that and they must use public swimming pools and have to get there using public transit services.

    • No one is claiming the government is doing/or should do any of the things you mentioned. The only thing I can possibly think of that backs your points are use taxes or taxes on activities with negative externalities. And if you don’t support things of that nature, here is some light reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cost

      Also, based on your tone throughout this diatribe, I feel like you are not well versed in redlining (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining) or any of the countless public/private practices that have caused our society to be as segregated and disconnected as it is today.

      • “No one is claiming the government is doing/or should do any of the things you mentioned. ”

        1. Government controls mass transit monopoly.

        2. Most commonly accepted excuse up to this point: “There’s no profit in mass transit. If private enterprise sees there’s profit, they’ll be doing it already. Since they’re not doing it, government is running it in their place.”

        3. A startup in San Francisco decides to start a social experiment to run privately run mass transit with VC funding (Leap http://rideleap.com/, Night School http://www.night.sc/news/)

        4. Government shuts them down in order to prevent competition from happening

        5. All the while the same government agency that bullies small startups, lavishes themselves with $250 dinner plate parties paid for by taxpayers and taking bribes from utility companies that they’re supposed to regulate

      • If you’re against redlining, then you should be for competition to take shape between public and private mass transit. A government monopoly only encourages growth in one area while overlooking another. Don’t tell me redlining is happening here in LA today. Look at how much service Metro has cut, look how little Metro coverage is below the 105, look how poorly Metro is run, and look how much flat rate fare hikes hurt the transit dependent.

        If Metro can’t provide those services or heed to consumer demands and only offers fare hikes, tax hikes, or service cuts as their only solutions, perhaps a private mass transit competitor could work better.

        Introduce a spice called “competition” and you’ll have both (or more) parties going after whatever market is available up for grabs. Maybe a little competition is just what Metro needs to start taking their job seriously and start listening to the people’s (market) demands instead of continually begging for taxpayer money all the time.

        Competition is good. If Metro doesn’t listen like offering distance based fares and considers it’s a wise way of charging people that going from Long Beach to Pasadena should cost the same $1.75 as going from MacArthur Park to 7th/Metro, but a competitor starts offering fares that range between $0.50-$5.00 and more people start taking the competitor, then it’ll force Metro to keep up with their competitor by getting rid of the flat rate fare format.

        But we’ll never have public vs. private mass transit competition take shape if government says that’s not allowed here in CA, being regulated by the CPUC who has the final say on who can or cannot operate mass transit services. Being said that, the state of CA, the CPUC, and Democrats in charge today seem like they’re not really that different from Standard Oil or US Steel: corrupt entities who wishes to maintain their vested monopolies to control their interests and crush competitors.

    • Hi Diego,

      There will be some minor changes to a few routes taking place later this month, and we’ll update as soon as the information is on metro.net.


      Anna Chen
      Writer, The Source

  3. “According to the city staffers, another reason the plan was pushed forward in its current form was because pedestrian traffic on the bridge didn’t warrant the additional sidewalk.”

    Man, Los Angeles is a frighteningly backwards place sometimes.