matatuby James A. Bacon

What would happen if government didn’t subsidize publicly owned mass transit systems in the United States? How would millions of car-less Americans ever get around?

It may be instructive to look at the example of Nairobi, Kenya, a city of three million that hasn’t gotten around to establishing a municipal transit system yet. The private sector has arisen to meet the demand for shared ridership services. Minibuses known as matatus, which seat between 14 and 24 passengers, run along established routes with their destinations imprinted on the side. Individual buses are readily distinguishable by their paint schemes, often highlighting favorite football teams, hip-hop artists or even President Obama. Competing for business, many are equipped with powerful sound systems and television screens to attract more riders.

There are safety concerns — matatus are known for reckless driving. Moreover, the individual routes don’t cohere into an orderly system. Until very recently, there was no citywide map of all the routes. But researchers with the University of Nairobi, Columbia University and MIT have remedied the latter deficiency by mapping the routes of some 130 matatu lines, as described by this article in Atlantic Cities, and found that they provide comprehensive coverage across the metropolitan area.

“Look, these people have planned your system from below!’” said Jacqueline Klopp with the Center for Sustainable Urban Development. “It is not as chaotic as people think it is. They have routes, they have numbers. There’s very, very regular stops that the city didn’t plan. I think it really helps people to see that there is this system that you can then improve on, that it’s not just a chaotic mess.”

“When the government does not step in, these informal economies are developed to meet a certain need that the government should be taking care of,” says Sarah Williams, the director of the Civic Data Design Lab. “That’s exactly what’s happened here. And it’s fascinating to see, because it’s totally driven by need.”

Responding to safety concerns, Nairobi officials have required matatus to include seat belts and install speed regulators. More recently, the city has acted to phase out the matatus, refusing to issue any new licenses. Current matatus will be allowed to live out their lifespan. The move seems incomprehensible… unless you consider the fact that Nairobi also has four bus lines. Just a guess, the crackdown on matatus may represent classic rent-seeking by the larger, better capitalized bus companies. Hmm. Sounds very American. Too bad.

Regardless, Nairobi has a much more vibrant mass transit scene than American cities do. Part of that reflects lower incomes and the inability of most Kenyans to buy their own cars. But part of the explanation is the domination of U.S. public transit by municipal transit systems and taxicab cartels that prevent competition by anyone with a better idea. Liberal-progressive Smart Growthers can lobby for expanding subsidized mass transit, if they want. But conservative Smart Growthers should stand up for free markets. We want matatus in America.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

37 responses to “Matatus for America”

  1. NewVirginia Avatar
    NewVirginia

    I lived in southern Africa for about six months and used these every day (they were called “combis” there). They’re extremely cheap and efficient and provide options for getting anywhere and I often wondered why we couldn’t get them in the U.S. Certainly we would quickly regulate them out of existence. Early entrants would lobby for no new entrants. We can’t even keep a taxi system from developing massive barriers to entry. Safety would be a nightmare – they are just asking for large, televisable incidents (even though statistically they would easily be safer than driving alone). One of these things somewhere would get into a fiery crash and kill ten people because they’re crammed in and couldn’t get out fast enough, immediately bringing down massive restrictions and regulatory boards that would make it impossible for them to pack people in the way they need to (see the Chinatown bus incidents).

    That said, there are also market-related, non-regulatory reasons they might not work here. For one thing, they are cramped, rickety, and involve very little personal space – a tough move for Americans who already think our luxury buses are nasty. But the most significant difference is that our value of time is dramatically higher. The combis in Africa (at least the countries I traveled in, which included all of the SADC) achieved their incredible levels of cost-effectiveness by always waiting until they were full to leave. Gas was expensive and time was cheap. People in Africa riding combis are not making $10 an hour and were accustomed to waiting for everything. In the United States on the other hand, the number one thing transit riders demand is more predictability and less time waiting around (people actually assess time spent waiting for a bus at two to four times as long as time actually spent on the bus). The competition between transit and automobiles in the US rarely happens at the level of cost – it’s practically a non-issue for most areas – but at the level of efficiency and comfort. Hence it would be tough for anything besides our fixed-schedule buses to work – even for (what we would consider) poorer populations.

    Another problem with bringing them here is that we just don’t have the concentrated market in most places. Just like buses and transit, these things need a dense population of people on foot. Even our densest and poorest urban areas cannot even begin to compete with Lagos or Johannesburg or Nairobi for sheer demand for these things. And less demand means fewer matatus running less often, making them less reliable and slower than driving a car, pushing more people to own cars, and driving the snowball further down the hill. We don’t have poor transit because we have too many regulations (though we may not be helping much either), we have poor transit because transit needs a spatially concentrated group of riders – and to get a spatially concentrated group of riders, you need transit. There is just no way around this chicken and egg situation.

    1. You raise a provocative question — would a jitney service work in the United States?

      I think so, although it would be different from a jitney service in Nairobi or South Africa. Third World minibuses are super crowded. (I’ve ridden one on Jamaica, I’ve experienced it first hand.) Most Americans would never tolerate the riding conditions. That’s why an American jitney service would charge more. Fewer seats + higher fares = problem solved.

      As far as density issues, it’s probably an issue. Jitneys wouldn’t work in the low-density ‘burbs. But there are plenty of places where they would work. The key breakthrough is the smart phone, which would allow you to track the exact whereabouts of a jitney and its time of arrival, and the jitney’s ability to track your location. One thing jitneys do that buses don’t is veer slightly off-route to pick up extra passengers.

      We can talk until we’re blue in the fact about the economics of the jitney business, and whether jitneys would succeed or fail in the U.S. market. But the fact is, we don’t know. We cannot know until we’ve opened up the marketplace and allowed people to innovate and experiment. My guess is that jitneys would never amount to more than a niche market in the U.S. — but it could potentially be a valuable market that serves a population that is currently under-served by money-losing, municipal mass transit services.

      1. NewVirginia Avatar
        NewVirginia

        “We can talk until we’re blue in the fact about the economics of the jitney business, and whether jitneys would succeed or fail in the U.S. market. But the fact is, we don’t know. We cannot know until we’ve opened up the marketplace and allowed people to innovate and experiment.”

        True that. I think we are already seeing the effects of a deregulated bus industry in the innovations brought in by Megabus. If jitneys could escape the web of taxi regulations that have accumulated over time, they could be quite successful.

        1. I think there may well be legitimate issues with existing regulations including the fact that disruptive technology may have well rendered some of the current regs for public conveyances obsolete.

          however, I also think there is a lack of understanding about the role of some regulation in protecting the consumer by requiring safety standards for vehicles and fitness standards for drivers and availability of service – the requirement that you provide service at times and locations.. it’s not optional.

          It’s also not totally clear as to who the villain is – the taxi “cartel” or the public transit “cartel”. They argue both.

          transit is already lower priced than it’s costs and it already goes to places that will not support free-market service so I’m less than clear on how Jitney’s would help the poor if they have to 1. make a profit 2. serve where the most demand is.

          but then the “study” morphs into an attack on taxis… and says that jitney’s would be cheaper than taxi’s – which is true but taxi’s are personally dispatched services verses the Jitney which is almost totally Ad Hoc and based on the opposite of personal services. apples and oranges.

          so I’m not entirely clear where Jintney’s are supposed to fit in the public sector conveyance puzzle.

          I’m NOT opposed to Jitney’s.

          I’m opposed to USING them as a proxy for de-regulation without full disclosure of the differences between regulated services and un-regulated or less regulated services – and what that means to customers.

          We already have this conundrum with Uber type services where people assumed that Uber was providing a services like Taxi’s but cheaper and it turns out that there are some major issues especially with insurance.

          We already allow 15-passenger commuter vans. In fact, we subsidize them with state-supported insurance…

          and we allow casual carpooling, i.e. “slugging”. We have street cars and we have airport shuttles and wheeled trolley buses… so my point is – it’s not “outlawed”.

          Second, if any of you have gotten into or out of a 15-passenger van, you know that”s it’s not a jitney in terms of easy and quick egress … there is one side door and if you are in the back or in an interior position – it’s virtually in-feasible as a Jitney type vehicle. It’s a no go as a jitney.

          so it would take a special vehicle and the closest that I can think of would be
          a wheeled “trolley” vehicle with a lot of doors… that looks a little like the one in Fredericksburg:

          http://www.lakeannafun.com/images/fredericksburg_trollytours.jpg

          I just don’t think from a safety point of view – that having multiple doors left and right on that kind of vehicle is a good thing.. but without it – everyone has to go to one or two doors. I question if the basic concept of a Jitney is compatible with a modern 1st world road system where cars already endanger pedestrians and bikes much less people getting out or trying to get in on the traffic side of a jitney.

          so we’d need a different kind of jitney.. I suspect.

          If you look at the tables in the NCPA document.. what they are also concerned with is two issues: “Shared-Ride/Flat Rate” and “Bus Stop
          Solicitation”. Perhaps those are two things that do need to be looked at but my bet is if those two things changed – for all providers the Jitney’s may well find the uber-type services tough competition.

          but the “evidence” that Jim provides.. people should read it.

          their premise is that we need – essentially less regulated public conveyances because they would be cheaper and “help the poor”.

          I’m not joking.. it sounds like a Middle School term paper.

  2. In other words, 3rd world solutions don’t work so well in 1st world countries.

    that’s what I don’t get about the “free market”/libertarian types.

    they think the way that markets “work” in 3rd world countries demonstrate a better way but they don’t like the way that 3rd world countries, in general “work” especially when it comes to the protection of individual property rights and rule of law.

    Do you REALLY want some guy running a 10-15 passenger bus that has brakes that are paper-thin (but who would know anyhow since it’s never inspected) .. and the “driver” sells drugs and child sex and worse on the side?

    don’t get me wrong – I accept there is such a thing as rent-seeking..and de-jure taxi cartels and protection there-of… but on the other hand… there seems to be a lack of understanding as to the why of how 3rd world commerce “works” and that things like insurance actually do have a real purpose – and further that in a 1st world country – the govt actually has to be involved in what businesses call themselves “insurance”… whereas such a concept in a 3rd world country where anyone can call themselves an insurance company and just put on a piece of paper whatever it is you want covered – for one low price… and then the “insurer” just disappears.. after that.

    Methinks the concept of MATATUS is … well a concept.. that has, as they say, “issues”… but hey.. if it’s good enough for 3rd world, why not us because we need to run those taxi cartels out of business!

    This country is experiencing a devastating attack of “stupid” these days when it comes to these “free market” …. ideas…

    1. Larry, Can you really, truly not comprehend the difference between regulating buses/taxis/jitneys and other modes of public conveyance for safety and regulating the marketplace so that entire categories of business are outlawed?

      I can’t tell — are you unable to make a meaningful distinction between the two kinds of regulation, one that protects the public safety and the other that protects established special interests? Or do you understand the differences but deliberately obscure them as a rhetorical tactic?

      1. re: “Larry, Can you really, truly not comprehend the difference between regulating buses/taxis/jitneys and other modes of public conveyance for safety and regulating the marketplace so that entire categories of business are outlawed?”

        are streetcars outlawed Jim? do know of specific laws that outlaw Jitney’s specifically or is it the “regulations” that are “barriers”? Can you cite some real evidence?

        “I can’t tell — are you unable to make a meaningful distinction between the two kinds of regulation, one that protects the public safety and the other that protects established special interests? Or do you understand the differences but deliberately obscure them as a rhetorical tactic?”

        Oh I CAN TELL the difference but can YOU?

        you like the Jiney’s in Africa but only as a concept.. not to be cloned in this country, right?

        Do you really think most people would find “pop-up” today, gone tomorrow Jitneys?

        Do you think Jitney’s would come to your house in Henrico? Do you think they would come there every day no matter what or just whenever they felt like it? Would you think they’d be as cheap as the ones in Africa if we put regulations on them – similar to the ones we have on other public conveyances in terms of vehicle safety and driver fitness and insurance?

        what exactly are you specifically advocating ? a concept – right?

        that’s the problem with you righties… it’s all concept.. until we get down to the nitty gritty – then … what?

        Don’t get me wrong. I think we have gone overboard on regulations.. in some cases and I too abhor regulations that serve as rent-seeking protection for cartels… but I seriously do not see how you go from a 3rd world concept to a 1st world working model.. because .. those that advocate the concept, never bring the model… How about talking to your friends at ALEC?

        that would be useful..

        I believe there is a reason why we are 1st world and 3rd world countries are 3rd world countries and one good reason is that people in this country value their time and would not put up with serendipity services…

        In general, in my view, the “free market” folks are long on concept and short on realities.. they want us to go back to 3rd world rules but not give up the 1st world advantages that rule of law and protection of property rights has given us.

  3. think about what the term “fly by night” means.

    seriously

    where did that term come from?

    what would we do about a company – like a ChinaTown Bus that rolls over and kills 4 people and the next day the business is closed… empty and the buses are who knows where?

    and then a few days later a “new” business springs up with a fleet of “new” buses with “new” drivers… to advertise a similar low priced fare?

    we take so many things for granted in this country even as we rail about “the rules”.

  4. If we had such services in the United States, we’d likely see a immigrants running the businesses operating them. More immigrant owned businesses would be good for America. But what would the professional caring class do without so many dependent immigrants?

    There should be periodic and random safety inspections. But not much more.

  5. DJRippert Avatar

    As usual, this idea focuses in on only one subsidy – the subsidy of taxpayers at large to users of government operated mass transportation. Many governments bear this subsidy because it alleviates an even bigger subsidy – government support for the under and unemployed. If a municipality spends $1M on mass transit subsidies but reduces under and unemployment subsidies by $1.5M that’s still a good deal for the municipality.

    A private company cannot monetize the reduction in subsidies given in the form of benefits to under and unemployed people. Therefore, the private company would stop service on a set of bus routes losing $100K per year even if those routes provided access to employment that caused the avoidance of $150K per year in benefits for the under and unemployed.

    1. “The private company would stop service on a set of bus routes losing $100K per year even if those routes provided access to employment that caused the avoidance of $150K per year in benefits for the under and unemployed.”

      Interesting idea if the abstract. But we have no idea if money-losing routes in municipal transit systems are critical to keeping people employed and avoiding the costs associated with their unemployment. You can argue that’s the case but you have absolutely no way of documenting it to be true. More to the point, transit companies have no way to document it to be true, and, accordingly, do not optimize their routes according to that criteria.

      But you seem to be missing the most important point of all — that private jitneys would provide transportation services to areas for which it is uneconomical for transit monopolies to serve. In other words, jitneys would serve *more* neighborhoods and *more* business corridors. But they’re effectively outlawed. What social costs can we attribute to that? If you want to take social externalities into account, the case for jitneys becomes ever stronger!

      1. re: ” that private jitneys would provide transportation services to areas for which it is uneconomical for transit monopolies to serve. In other words, jitneys would serve *more* neighborhoods and *more* business corridors. But they’re effectively outlawed. ”

        why would a jitney serve a route that is uneconomical? and even if they would, what would be the threshold for them to decide to no longer provide service – and what would people do who lived there and depended on the service?

        and … when we say “effectively outlawed”, can we provide some evidence?

        1. Reasons why jitneys can serve routes at less cost (thus more economically) than conventional mass transit buses.

          (1) Jitneys are much smaller. They cost far less to operate.
          (2) Jitneys are far more nimble. They can lengthen, contract or modify the route as needed far quicker than a transit company can.
          (3) Jitney routes are more flexible. They can drive a block out of the way to pick up a customer, while transit buses cannot.
          (4) Jitney owners are more entrepreneurial. They build a clientele based on personal relationships with riders. They add amenities (music, TV screens, whatever) that buses do not.

          1. Jitneys are going to go where the business is.. right?

            consider what that means in terms of providing a reliable and dependable service to all potential users…

            what keeps a bunch of Jitney’s from all bunching up together on a popular route and ignoring the less busy routes?

            what keeps Jitney’s from shutting down service whenever they feel like it?

            what keeps new Jitneys from crowding out existing ones with lower prices but with less safe vehicles or sketchy drivers?

            what I want to hear from you is that Jitney’s will have to be regulated and would not operate on an unregulated, truly free-market basis.

            Once we establish what you really are with regard to regulation..we can discuss what your price is…

            😉

          2. Here’s how King Larry would govern the country: “As long as I have unanswered questions about a business’ feasibility, I’ll outlaw it.” Can’t run the risk of having some crazy entrepreneur out there try something that might fail. Too many people would be discombobulated.

          3. re: ” Here’s how King Larry would govern the country: “As long as I have unanswered questions about a business’ feasibility, I’ll outlaw it.” Can’t run the risk of having some crazy entrepreneur out there try something that might fail. Too many people would be discombobulated.

            actually I’m completely in favor of a free market as long as people understand what it means… and what it does not mean.

            For instance, I’d be fine with Jitneys having on their sides the facts that they have no regulations or restrictions and no insurance and that the rider assumes all liability, and there is no guarantee of service at any location and whatever service is rendered is totally up to the discretion of the driver.

            just full disclosure in other words…

            I just don’t think the average American is going to KNOWINGLY find Jitney’s service – to their liking.

            I think there are some places where Jitney makes sense like theme parks or tourist locations or National Parks or Airports, etc.. where we ALREADY have these things RIGHT NOW – which begs the question as to them being “outlawed”.

            The problem with the right these days is they take an issue of which there is some truth and they blow it up into a narrative that is essentially false.

            that’s wrong.

          4. DJRippert Avatar

            So, why can’t municipal bus services operate smaller, more nimble, more flexible entrepreneurial routes?

            It’s hard to say whether you like jitneys or hate government run mass transit systems.

            I agree that government run operations seem to be generally expensive and often incompetent. Progressives will say “oh, oh, look what private enterprise did with the recent banking failure”. To which I’d retort, “oh, oh, look what government did with the Vietnam War”.

            Anyway, the question is whether government can be reformed to be relatively efficient and relatively competent. Why can’t a municipal bus service be efficient, nimble, flexible, etc?

        2. Evidence? Do you really need evidence?

          Try this: http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Enterprise-Programs-Freeing-Entrepreneurs-to-Provide-Essential-Services-for-the-Poor.pdf

          Read the section, “Modern Day Jitneys” starting on page 17.

          “While it may appear that local governments are more open to the use of jitney services to relieve stressed transit systems, most cities still prohibit them, and the few that do provide licenses restrict jitney numbers significantly. In fact, not a single city allows jitneys to operate in a manner that makes use of all of the benefits of a jitney system. The reason for this trend may be politics more than economics.”

          1. re: ” But in most U.S. cities, the jitney — a potential
            form of public transportation — has been virtually outlawed by a confluence
            of local government regulations.”

            bull feathers…

            look at their LACK of footnotes.. to document their claims..

            their claims are THEIR views .. not the facts…

            beyond that.. have you considered things like “slugging” and Commuter Vans in VDOT parking lots…

            they themselves point out places like Atlantic City and Houston but in the same breadth the complain about regulations like “liability insurance”.

            how about airport shuttles? are they outlawed?

          2. What’s it like living in Larry world? Do you enjoy having your very own reality? It must be nice believing whatever you want to believe.

          3. re: ” What’s it like living in Larry world? Do you enjoy having your very own reality? It must be nice believing whatever you want to believe”

            My world is the world we live in right now – and the reasons why it is what it is – right now…

            I do not “reach” for “concepts” … like “patient-centered free market healthcare” or other supposed ways that things “could work”.

            I’m not at all opposed to innovation and slaying real rent-seeking dragons and wrong-headed regulations but my world is real not the one the right lives in these days where they advocate for things that are concepts at best and they play around with evidence to make it suit their beliefs.

            I’m a pragmatist… I believe in what is now and I believe in change but I eschew the current loony tunes narratives blathered from the right that masquerade as “free market”.

            take that Jim B! I can get more personal too if that is your wish.

          4. We already have jitney’s Jim. We have street cars. We have commuter vans and slugging.. we have carriages in tourist areas…etc…

            what we don’t have is unregulated, unscheduled, taxi service.

            and that is what the Jitney deal ..as well as Uber and related are really about.

            they are proxies for the anti-regulation right.

            they believe that regulations are harmful in terms of jobs and the economy – and .. I … AGREE!

            but the problem is WHERE did these regulations come from?

            according to the right, it’s a conspiracy.. a massive one that involves every govt, Fed, State and Local that has been taken over by a bunch of power-hungry social engineers and crony capitalists and rent seekers!

            not a place in the whole frigging country where these pests have not invaded the poor old free market and squelched it !

            talk about living in one’s own world!

            so we come up with these narratives that Jitney’s have been outlawed – UNIVERSALLY across the country – i.e.

            ” But in most U.S. cities, the jitney — a potential
            form of public transportation — has been virtually outlawed by a confluence of local government regulations.”

            but WAIT! there’s MORE! it’s ALL ABOUT THE POOR!

            “These policies are extremely detrimental to
            the welfare of the poor. Regulations preventing the operation of jitneys are as misguided as they are pervasive. The jitney has the potential to fill the gap in the transportation options and increase the welfare of America’s poor.”

            so apparently the NCPA see’s this as a GAP in the EXISTING transit service that needs Jitney’s – to serve the poor!

            such a NOBLE thing… serving the poor.. !!!

            that CHANGES – EVERYTHING…

            here I thought this was about the free market and a better life for everyone.. but no.. this is about the POOR!

            my mistake.

            I take it all back.

            I see the brilliance of the free market advocates now.

            the poor are the ones who benefit if we have a more free market!

            Jeeesus H. Keeeerist… Bacon

            why didn’t you say that to START WITH!

            😉

    2. we’re seeing this with airlines right now – even in Richmond – where private sector companies either won’t serve a market, pull out, or charge substantially more to provide service.

      I’m not advocating that we subsidize airlines – though we already do in terms of the FAA and the physical airports…

      you can make the same argument about transit that you could with schools – and in fact, those who want to privatize transit , many of them would also privatize schools… AND they’d get rid of entitlements like SS and MediCare and EITC, etc….

      VOILA! back to the 3rd world!

      1. “You can make the same argument about transit that you could with schools.”

        Yeah, I could. But I don’t.

        LarryG supports gay marriage. He could extend the arguments for gay marriage to legalize polygamy, marriage between men and beasts, and all other kinds of unorthodox arrangements. … But he doesn’t.

        Let’s stick to critiquing the arguments that people actually make, as opposed to arguments that in some alternate universe they could make.

        1. ” “You can make the same argument about transit that you could with schools.”

          Yeah, I could. But I don’t.”

          you don’t but the libertarian and hard-right Conservatives do.

          “LarryG supports gay marriage. He could extend the arguments for gay marriage to legalize polygamy, marriage between men and beasts, and all other kinds of unorthodox arrangements. … But he doesn’t. ”

          except there are few, if any that make that argument whereas with the “free market” types – it’s wide ranging .. and real.

          “Let’s stick to critiquing the arguments that people actually make, as opposed to arguments that in some alternate universe they could make.”

          I’m associating the folks who say they want “free markets” with many of the other things that same group says they want also.

          you pick and choose more carefully but the groups you’re associated with have a much wider agenda.. and you side with them on some of it.

          I do not buy the “jitneys are outlawed because of rent-seeking cartels” argument. I think that Americans themselves would find the basic Jitney service – as performed in most places around the world – unacceptable because it’s basically a 3rd world culture and we’re not 3rd world.

          People want public conveyances that are safe, reliable and dependable and Jitney’s just are not any of those things in most places they operate.

          they make a big deal of talking about how they are _not_ “chaotic”.. that the government is doing something about that aspect… come on.. give me a break… the government has to make jitney’s less chaotic, not the “free market”?

  6. They could start by having neighborhood/mall/whatever shuttles running service directly to local transit transfer centers. There could even be a pick up app for that. Then have the main buses connect directly without stops between the various centers much like ATM computer cell switching. If the bus is full it flies, or it leaves after a preset time on station when things are slow. During times of high volume, some buses could be re-routed real time to high traffic transfers, with a later bus catching the lighter route. This way the schedule doesn’t control the bus, the package of passengers controls the schedule. Asynchronously.

    The way things work down here the routes all meet up at various centers, then wait until all the connecting buses arrive. Then they start back down their routes, empty or full.

    1. If you want me to agree that public transit does not work as well as it should.. or even that it sucks sometimes, no problem, I totally agree. I do not defend transit. It has issues… as they say.

      there is lots of room for improvement and one area might well be (public transit) smaller vehicles that can be “dispatched” by apps…. by the “poor” using cell phones but keep in mind – more vehicles means more drivers.. more costs and that makes transit even less cost-effective.

      Can the private sector do it cheaper? why sure.. if “it” means some individuals driving some private vehicles serving some of the demand during some of the time but even then would the individual ride on a jitney-type vehicle be cheaper than a public transit fare?

      That’s why you see the discussion in the “study” shift to taxis but that’s even more preposterous – that a ride on a jitney would be cheaper than a taxi – well yes – but comparing a jitney to a personally-dispatched taxi is even more ludicrous.

      but their narrative tries to do this by trying hard to find a “place” for the jitney in a 1st world county – transportation system when there is a reason why 3rd world countries have jitney’s in the first place and it’s not about regulation – it’s a bottom-of-the-barrel type service for being whose productivity and time constraints are 3rd world not 1st world.

      In this country – jitney service would work ..does work.. fine … in specific circumstances like tourist destinations, special events, etc where a large type golf cart is operating in a relatively protected venue separate from typical auto traffic.

      but putting a jitney on a heavily traveled US arterial would be a disaster.. people would die… ANY kind of open-side vehicles going much slower than typical automobile traffic would be a disaster..

      here’s my challenge – we have 50 countries in the world that are not 3rd world. All different kinds of governments.. all different kinds of regulation, some with much less regulation than the US.

      find me a country – a 1st world or a developing world country where Jitney’s are a ubiquitous but privately-operated segment of a transit system used by the public.

      let’s step sideways away from the right-leaning anti-US-govt tropes that hold up the US as the top evil-doer of regulation. Get the US out of the equation and show me some real models of success in non-3rd world countries.

      deal?

      Is that a transit “system” that provides a reliable service at specified service levels at specific locations – at defined times – dependably?

      so the premise is that the Jitney’s would not replace costly and subsidized public transit but would, in theory, add to it by allowing less regulation for certain folks who want to operated a service that has no similar mandate to the one that public transit has.

      1. Larry, you’ve raised the bar — you’re insisting upon a transportation service “that provides a reliable service at specified service levels at specific locations – at defined times – dependably?”

        If you can’t get that, you’d rather people have no service at all.

        Nice.

        1. re: ” Larry, you’ve raised the bar — you’re insisting upon a transportation service “that provides a reliable service at specified service levels at specific locations – at defined times – dependably?”

          If you can’t get that, you’d rather people have no service at all.”

          I’ve described most transit systems in the US.

          it’s reliable service at specified service levels at specific locations at defined times – and it provides those things dependably.

          perhaps you are mistaking expanded service levels with existing ones?

          you’re mistaking the difference between something that actually exists vs something you’d like to exist…and presuming that at-hoc “free market” offerings would even measure up to the existing service levels that public transit does provide.

          the NCPA “study” skillfully evades this issue by playing the taxi vs transit game.. where they switch from one to the other when they run up on the service level realities.

          transit, as currently deployed in the US is less than wonderful, as well as subsidized but for the most part they serve a defined territory are specific times – and usually on time for those specified times.

          the fact that it does not “reach” further and provide more frequent service is not the same as unreliable and undependable ad hoc service that you might get from independent entrepreneurs who have no mandate to provide a unified system-level service.

          this is the problem with the free market guys.. there is a difference between 1st world standards and 3rd world standards.

        2. I’m not opposed to Jitney’s. I’m in favor of Jitney’s but as a defined service with safety regulations for vehicle and drivers – or at least full disclosure to the public as to the differences.

          and we’re into a semantics issue here because the “jitneys” that we think of (at least me) are large open-sided type vehicles like this:

          https://ridecommand.com/Media/Default/BlogPost/news/RC_Blog_car.jpg

          these vehicles are not considered suitable for use on most US roads. They are permitted in small towns and similar in Va.. but you won’t find them on higher speed roads which have cars and trucks.

          We already allow the 15-passenger shuttle vans you see at airports that serve car rental and hotels.

          Many of them are “free”.

          Don’t you think these 15-passenger shuttle vans and more likely to be acceptable as “jitneys” than these large open-door type vehicles?

          these vehicles are not cheap. they would cost 50K and up… so that kind of blows a hole in the “poor man becomes an entrepreneur” idea and moves the ball more towards the kinds of entities that could afford these vehicles.

          I just don’t see the typical jitney-type vehicles we think of in tourist locations or 3rd world countries as ever being considered safe enough to transport the public.. insurance would be damned difficult to obtain I would think.

  7. That may explain part of our disagreement. When you hear “jitney” you have a particular vehicle in mind, a vehicle that is safe to operate only at very load speeds in low-traffic conditions.

    When I hear “jitney,” I think of a generic term that encompasses vehicles with between 10 to 20 seats or so, meeting conventional automotive safety standards. I also think it’s appropriate for the state government to regulate reasonable safety standards regarding the operation and maintenance of the vehicles.

    1. that’s part of it for sure but the other part is the indictment of regulation in the shortfall of transit systems and taxis in meeting a need in 1st world countries.

      It’s a popular parlor game on the right these days and it usually ignores other factors endemic to the issues. You see this in the libertarian blogs as well as many libertarian / free-market type think tanks like the NCPA.

      In this case they blame regulation for the plight of the poor and further their solution is to relax regulations in two ways: 1. – for companies that serve the poor (primarily) and 2 – to allow the poor to become entrepreneurs without having to meet the burden of regulation.

      It’s in the paper you provided.

      that’s what I’m reacting to. They believe an un-regulated or less-regulated service (they are never really clear as to what regulations they think should not be relaxed)… just the ones that they think essentially outlaw jitney service.

      and I’ve pointed out some clear examples of certain types of existing jitney-type services so clearly THOSE services are not “outlawed” but those services do have to provide certified vehicles and drivers and insurance – and that’s where the cost is – and the NPCA ignores in their primary premise that regulation is bad in general and specifically harms the poor.

      The poor in this country are not going to be able to afford shuttle vans for jitney type service … so NPCA is advocating “something” but never are clear about what just that loosening up regulation will “make it happen”.

      It’s sorta like the Uber advocacy.. where the claim is if we only let people use their own cars – we could have smartphone dispatch-able service for for far less than the taxi “cartel” service. Part of what makes taxi service expensive is the regulations – yes – the regulations that require that the vehicles be in good operating condition, the drivers be qualified and fit – AND they can obtain affordable private insurance where the insurance company, not the govt is deciding on the premiums based on the regulatory standards as well as the specifics for a company.. like their accident experience.

      The anti-regulation people see this as not only unnecessary but making the service(s) costly.

      I think the truth is somewhere in the middle and somewhat murky and not near as clear cut as the anti-regulation folks would have us believe.

      they really never make the case for something specific – and deal with the insurance issues; they basically lay out their case as to why regulation is bad.

      anyone can make a case against something.. but the real trick is to provide a model for improvement .. and that would include including other 1st world countries besides the US in their narratives.

      It’s not uncommon in my view to see them essentially argue that 1st world regulations are bad and 3rd world regulations are “good” as if the 1st world could be even better if it dropped its regulations and modeled them instead after 3rd world regulations.

      Call me a serious skeptic on that.. and no I do not like the idea of getting rid of regulation to “see what would happen”… as an “experiment” at least until we admit the role of insurance in regulation and why government has to certify insurance companies rather than let anyone form a company that sells insurance – on their terms without necessarily any financial ability to actually deliver compensation when accidents do occur.

      For instance, Uber and similar claim that a driver that is “on call” is not covered by their insurance and that totally begs the question about who IS covering that driver if his only insurance is the typical non-commercial consumer insurance.

      who fixes this and how does it get fixed or is this something the govt should stay out of all together – and if the govt does stay out of it – then does the public know and understand that this is “different” in terms of protection of their rights?

      We have jitney type service in downtown Fredericksburg. We have horse-drawn carriages and wheeled trolley’s and just approved a 5-10 person “bike” but these vehicles will never deliver people from downtown Fredericksburg to other parts of the city – especially those parts that are only accessible by arterial roads that have higher speeds auto/truck traffic.

      I try to visualize how such a “jitney” would function in those conditions and what I see is not a regulation obstacle but a real world one in that 1st world countries move traffic with arterial roads and 3rd world move traffic on dirt roads with slower, almost snail paced traffic that includes things like bikes, peds, and even animals…

      and will that.. I will cease blathering…

  8. billsblots Avatar
    billsblots

    Holeee Crap!

  9. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    We had a great example of free market enterprise and lax regulation involving a “China bus” where the driver was bone tired and over-stressed. Several passengers lost their lives on I-95 near Fredericksburg.

    So you want to have a laxly-regulated “jitney” system? Are you nuts?

    1. “So you want to have a laxly-regulated “jitney” system?”

      Please show me wear I ever implied that I want a “laxly regulated” jitney system. You can’t. In the comments, I repeatedly support the principle of regulating for health and safety. But that’s very different from regulating for the purpose of protecting incumbent transportation enterprises. It is baffling to me that you (and LarryG) cannot immediately grasp the difference.

      1. re: “grasping the concept”

        the problem is that it is a concept .. and largely undefined .. by the proponents who seem to generally love the free market and less regulation but are short of how it should work specifically – i.e. the lack of discussion about what regulation should or should look like.

        again.. I’m in favor of jitney’s – defined in terms of how they differ from taxi’s and transit especially with regard to insurance.

        the average person believes that transit and taxis have insurance and further that they’ d not have insurance if the insurance company though they were a bad risk.

        With Jitney”s, the proponents explicitly avoid the subject… and just go on and on about how “regulation” is harmful.

        the person that gets hurt/killed on an uninsured or more properly and unisureable jitney like the China Town buses and Uber cabs is going to take a dim view of it …and guess what.. regulation comes when consumers find out someone is operating an unsafe service .. that insurance companies refuse to insure.

        with Uber, China-town buses and Jitney’s insurance is the Achilles heel – not regulation but the anti-regulation folks pretend otherwise.. the want the govt to be fingered as the evil-doer… not free market private insurance.

        this is not rocket science. If you were in the insurance business yourself and a Jitney operator came to you and wanted insurance, would you just provide it without making sure how the jitney operated in terms of the safety and maintenance of the vehicles, and the fitness of the driver?

        of course not. Any insurance company that did that would go broke on the first claim.

        the free market types either do not understand insurance or they ignore it as a more major influence than regulation.

        insurance is no problem in a 3rd world country. you get hurt or killed and it’s your tough luck. 1st world countries don’t work that way – AND there is a reason why.

        insurance and regulation often go hand in hand. Insurance actually wants the government to license and set rules.. so that operators can be kept out of business if they do not perform according to regulations.

  10. Email correspondence from Glen Bottoms, Center for Public Transportation, republished with his permission:

    What you stated to begin your blog piece could be applied in this way. “What would happen if government didn’t subsidize highways in the United States? How would millions of car-bound Americans ever get around?” Federal highway statistics indicate that user fees from federal and state sources cover only 51 percent of the direct cost of highways (the rest coming from general revenues and other sources). I really get tired of reading about how unacceptable subsidized transit is when ALL modes are subsidized to some extent in this country.

    And since when can we equate Nairobi, Kenya with conditions in the U.S? So we apply the Matatus solution. All those vans buzzing around say, the Washington metropolitan area (or even Richmond) and, viola, problem solved. And who would these Matususes be appealing to? Would this service entice throngs of auto-bound drivers to switch to transit, er, Matatus service?

    Yes, it’s fascinating to see ad hoc solutions rise out of chaos, answers to problems the government either refuses to address or is incapable of doing so. And, yes, maybe our government is headed in that direction but it’s not there yet. And ‘til we reach the level of chaos practiced in Kenyan cities on a daily basis, I’m looking for First World solutions, not dreamy, netherworld ideas based on ideological considerations.

    Perhaps you don’t agree that attracting people out of their cars is a key job for transit. It’s not the transit-dependent riders that transit needs to draw. By definition, they will take transit. Transit has to appeal to the choice rider to be successful. True multimodal solutions need to be adopted. While it has become cliché to say that no city has built its way out of congestion, it is nevertheless true. Former Governor McDonnell’s relentless pursuit of highway-based solutions during his term (HOT lanes on I-495 in Northern Virginia, HOT lanes on I-95 South now abuilding, the Charlottesville Bypass, the 460 toll Road boondoggle, Bi-County Parkway, etc.) simply means that scarce dollars are being applied to expand capacity that will be quickly filled (460 likely being an exception, of course) and we’re really right back to where we started.

    I wish I could say that this kind of article adds to the debate over transit versus highways in this country. I just don’t think it does. In fact, I think it may trivialize transit and reinforce the negative feelings that many conservatives have toward transit. This conservative feels that transit, especially rail transit, has a key role to play in providing mobility and choice in our metropolitan areas. It can also play a major role in sparking economic development. But I must admit that I’m not looking to Nairobi, Kenya for definitive answers.

    I say leave the Matatus solution to think tanks in their Ivory Towers to mull over. We need to pursue more practical, workable alternatives. Some private solutions may have merit but only if all subsidies are abolished and consumers pay the true cost of transportation. But how likely is that?

Leave a Reply