Is Public Transit "Best Left to the Government?"

https://podcasts.voxmedia.com/show/on-with-kara-swisher

A recent episode of "On with Kara Swisher" featured a discussion with Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson on their new book, "Abundance," about how we need more, not less government, but it needs to be more results-oriented and less obstructionist than what 'blue' states and cities are doing now.

I appreciate most of what they have to say. Government should be committed to doing well what the private sector cannot, e.g., healthcare, infrastructure, research, etc. But then into that list they throw the blanket term "public transit." Given my experience supporting private transportation programs in Silicon Valley, and what we're up to with CommuteSource, I think there's a critical distinction to be made here between the different modes of public transit. Commuter train and light-rail systems probably need to be run by the government, given the dedicated infrastructure and equipment requirements. But transportation itself can be viewed in total as a market, and heavily subsidized yet wholly inadequate municipal bus systems distort this market, thwarting innovation and keeping most of us in our cars.

I also agree with the authors that "housing, housing, housing" should be THE priority for the Democrats going forward. But if you want housing in our cities, and not just more congestion-producing suburban sprawl, you need to first liberate all the urban real estate wasted on parking, parking, parking. Estimates are all over the map (heh), but using the conservative figure of 5-8% of developed land being dedicated to parking would mean that car storage takes up 150-240 square miles, or 2-3 San Franciscos, within the Bay Area alone. And while it often seems like some places don't have enough parking, that land is dedicated to that purpose whether it's occupied or not.

We need more effective, affordable alternatives to driving and private car ownership now. (And, no: I'm not talking about 'robo-taxis,' because they don't scale either.) A demand-responsive, commercial mass transit system is an enormous commercial opportunity in and of itself. That it would liberate real estate from parking demand and enable a more targeted, effective use of any government subsidies necessary for equitable accessibility is gravy. More effective, innovative models are available using existing technology and infrastructure, but don't hold your breath waiting for municipal transit systems to implement them--they're too busy operating antiquated service models under impossible requirements with inadequate funding. At the risk of sounding like a techno-libertarian, transportation is, perhaps surprisingly, an industry the government should (mostly) leave to the market.