It's because public transport is available for the general public and is typically managed on a schedule and operates on established routes.
Private transport (as opposed to public transport) is the individual use of transportation where, in theory, the user can decide freely on the time and route using a vehicles such as a car, bicycle, motorcycle, scooter, aircraft, boat, snowmobile, carriage, horse, etc. :P
Are there public goods that *should* be privatized? One could argue that the internet was developed with public funds, but privatization sparked the cambrian explosion that we call the internet (recent reduction in diversity of the 'net notwithstanding).
Also, are there kinds of growth that couldn't have happened without cars? Logistics systems that may have suffered without roads as a means of transport?
That's a very tough question. For public transit specifically, I think there is a good synergy to be had with a hybrid structure, where rails are owned and operated by the government and private companies can utilize if they pay a fee and follow specific requirements such as required frequency and availability. This system is implemented many European countries and work relatively well.
Yes, I do think that any means of increased connection is beneficial for innovation and economic activity, but even in the US, cities with "good" public transit have substantially higher economic activity per square meter than cities with a lack of it. In the case of LA, I could definitely see how not letting the tram system fall apart would have made the city less sprawling, increased the attractiveness of downtown LA and increase mobility for poor people substantially.
I wonder if there are any studies on these numbers -- it's unfortunately impossible to go back in time and make different decisions but I wonder if there's a way to standardize and compare one society that went the public transport route and another that went the private transit route fairly.
I've heard that Brussels in Belgium vs Amsterdam in the Netherlands is a good case study, where Belgium in the 70s doubled down on cars while Amsterdam went the opposite route. Just need to find a case study now :)
Very educational! One (dumb) question, Japan's railway is privatized but why do we call it public transport not private transport?
Not a dumb question at all!
It's because public transport is available for the general public and is typically managed on a schedule and operates on established routes.
Private transport (as opposed to public transport) is the individual use of transportation where, in theory, the user can decide freely on the time and route using a vehicles such as a car, bicycle, motorcycle, scooter, aircraft, boat, snowmobile, carriage, horse, etc. :P
I see, it's not about who owns it. Thanks!
Are there public goods that *should* be privatized? One could argue that the internet was developed with public funds, but privatization sparked the cambrian explosion that we call the internet (recent reduction in diversity of the 'net notwithstanding).
Also, are there kinds of growth that couldn't have happened without cars? Logistics systems that may have suffered without roads as a means of transport?
That's a very tough question. For public transit specifically, I think there is a good synergy to be had with a hybrid structure, where rails are owned and operated by the government and private companies can utilize if they pay a fee and follow specific requirements such as required frequency and availability. This system is implemented many European countries and work relatively well.
Yes, I do think that any means of increased connection is beneficial for innovation and economic activity, but even in the US, cities with "good" public transit have substantially higher economic activity per square meter than cities with a lack of it. In the case of LA, I could definitely see how not letting the tram system fall apart would have made the city less sprawling, increased the attractiveness of downtown LA and increase mobility for poor people substantially.
Sure that's pretty reasonable!
I wonder if there are any studies on these numbers -- it's unfortunately impossible to go back in time and make different decisions but I wonder if there's a way to standardize and compare one society that went the public transport route and another that went the private transit route fairly.
I've heard that Brussels in Belgium vs Amsterdam in the Netherlands is a good case study, where Belgium in the 70s doubled down on cars while Amsterdam went the opposite route. Just need to find a case study now :)