> what is the difference between a fixed route shuttle operated by Uber versus a bus operated by the city, except that one siphons the profit into a private company?

One, the technology already works. If I visit Dallas or Philadelphia, I already have the app. Getting set up (and familiarised) with each city's app as a visitor is a friction.

Two, smell. This is absolutely classist. But Uber will probably do a better job keeping someone who hasn't bathed in two weeks out of their system than the public bus system. We could wish upon a star and poof away class structure in America. Or we could admit that running Uber shuttles between busses increases the system's throughput with minimal downside.

Three, flexibility. These shuttles will automate before any union-controlled public bus system in America has a chance to.

It's not just classist. It's deeply obnoxious looking down on your fellow man. Shame on you. People that have views like yours do not deserve to live in a society where all the shit jobs are done by lowly paid other people. You should have to clean your own sewers and repair your own roads and look after your own public parks, and all the thousand and one jobs that just happen by those people that might end up smelly as a result.

> If Uber can do it, especially if they can do it profitably, I'm at a loss as to why a city government could not accomplish the same

City governments generally have stricter requirements for whom they have to service. Private companies can fire their pathological customers more easily.

> You're likely right, but I suspect only because of social stigma and classism.

No, our cities are extraordinarily poorly designed.

They're built in such a way that the only way to get around in a cost-effective and time-effective way is by taking a private vehicle.

Here in Dallas, TX, we have the DART and it's pretty expansive. But the city is huge and sprawling - Dallas is still basically a suburb pretending to be a city. A typical 20 minute drive is going to be an hour on the DART. There just isn't enough density to make train and bus stops make sense in almost all US cities.

Why would that favor fixed-route shuttles operated by a private company? I agree that transit is hard, but it sounds like the only advantage Uber has is the ability to charge much higher fares than the public would ever allow for buses.

No? I agree with you about the layout favoring personal vehicles of course.

One entity has a public purpose to provide effective public transport across a wide area with different routes of variable profitability. The other has a goal of claiming the profitable routes and ignoring the non profitable ones.

I just don't follow. There is no "claim"; the municipality can run on the "profitable" routes, too. They don't have to turn a profit, though, so they can always undercut Uber (unless Uber intends to use their previous strategy of taking losses on each ride until the competitor goes out of business, and I don't know that any city would stand for it). So, then, the only reason to use Uber's routes is because they're more comfortable or direct. However, in that case, they're obliged to charge more per passenger, at a rate approaching the cost of a private Uber ride.

Maybe their goal IS to run city busses out of business. Maybe they're about to FAFO.

Obviously it depends on the municipality, but in the UK for example, there's a (IMO deeply misguided) view that public transport should be cost neutral. That is, the bus services in a city, say, should not be subsidised. This is to the point that it is actually illegal for city councils to run a bus services. The private contractors are consistently pushing against their minimal service obligations in areas that are less profitable.

> the municipality can run on the "profitable" routes, too

Hell, the municipality can wait to see if it works, and if it does, launch a public competitor.

> only because of social stigma and classism.

Also low density makes public transit less accessible, requires mode shifts, and, of course, the time cost of public transit vs cars.

So essentially that buses need to have higher fares in low density areas? I'm sure Uber fixed-route shuttles will cost many times more. It's hard to imagine a fixed-route shuttle making much more sense in a low density area than buses logistically.

Unfortunately that means low income folks who can't afford 5-10x higher daily fare (and I think that's a decent guess) are excluded from living there. But sure, if we assume a public transit system should be profitable (and I personally disagree with that) you'd end up unable to service expensive to reach areas.

I concede that's a rock and hard place situation though.

What I can see as an upside is that if Uber's brand lets them short circuit the classism and normalize not using a car all the time. That's also a prerequisite for a healthy bus system, generally you have to build the transit and make it reliable before expecting people to stop driving cars, people have to be able to reliably get around. So if it makes people feel secure in not owning one, when public bus routes are added they'll actually have riders and not get discontinued after a month trial.