United states does not need buses ! What might benefit is smaller vans that do more intelligent routing than fixed bus routes. Unfortunately city admins run bus services as jobs programs for adults and not for the convenience of the people. Buses get funded by taxes and not fare collection and as a result even private competition can not emerge.

▲

pavel_lishin 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> and as a result even private competition can not emerge.

Demonstrably untrue, if you were to look at taxis, ubers, lyfts, and ... small vans that operate exactly as you describe, in many large cities. (In NYC, I know there exists such a van network in Brooklyn, and near the George Washington Bridge running across the river.)

And besides, buses have advantages that "intelligent routing"-based vans - predictability and reliability. If I need to get somewhere by bus, I know exactly which stop I need to go to, and usually when the bus is scheduled to arrive to pick me up, and also to drop me off.

(Granted, sometimes those times aren't right, but they usually are, most of the time.)

	▲	nine_k 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Confirmed: the van network in Brooklyn exists, a ride still costs $2 (compared to $3 on an MTA bus), the vans / minibuses largely follow popular bus routes, and stop basically anywhere along the route where it is safe, including on a red light.
	▲	mothballed 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I've ridden collectivo type vans in a number of latin america countries (Philippines has same although sometimes in form of jeepnee), they work quite well, you shout 'para' or some such where you need to stop and wave boldly when you need to get on. Much prefer it to a bus, and also since they are privately owned it is very easy to kick assholes off which is one of my biggest gripes with dealing with public transit.

▲

5o1ecist 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Your post is confusing.

Smaller vans, transporting several people at once, are also busses. Any and all private competition offering to transport several people at once, would also use vehicles colloquially called busses.

Furthermore has public transport historically never been for the convenience of the people. Instead it provides jobs, increases the flow of money, provides income for The State.

You can read more about the beginnings of public transportation here:

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/hey-hey-can-you-tell-me-who...

▲

banana_sandwich 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

nothing in this comment is rooted in reality

▲

wat10000 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

City buses aren't profitable. There's no fare that would cover costs. Your choices aren't to have a subsidized government bus service or have competitive private bus services, your choices are to have a subsidized government bus service or have no bus service.

▲

macintux 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sharing a van with strangers is more unpleasant than buses, given the cramped seating.

▲

steanne 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

wouldn't a network of vans require hiring a lot more drivers per passenger than busses need? sounds like a jobs program.

▲

jghn 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Tell me you don't live in a real city without telling me you don't live in a real city.

Where I live the busses are quite useful and get used by a lot of people.

	▲	IAmBroom 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Don't discount the ability of political extremists to discount even the evidence they see themselves (or reframe it massively), if it conflicts with their agenda.