This clearly is not an equal level of service. If the ride operated like that it would be cheaper too, I do hope it never does that. It makes sense in a Pandemic when over capacity and understaffed but not an indication of which service is superior. If a T taxi could take advantage of various ridership to reduce time driving empty it would be a lot more efficient, but that isn't the Ride's role. The ride is door to door service transit service specialized for people unable to access public transportation. It does a pretty decent job overall of doing that from what I've seen/heard. That will not be cheap. I am truly glad to live in a region that gives this option to people, It truly helps people with certain disabilities participate as full members in society who otherwise would not be able to get around easily at all. I don't think this is a fair comparison to a taxi service aimed to everyone, its verging on dishonest and feels like cherry picking.
There's a legitimate discussion to be had about the cost structures when something is as expensive as the RIDE. To the extent that we're talking about a paratransit service providing guaranteed service levels above and beyond anything provided by the private sector, to people who have need of that level of service, it's a public good that is worth the cost if we're to consider ourselves a progressive society. It's also presumably true that not everyone who uses the RIDE needs the full extent of its services; if someone does not, that is where its inefficient cost structure becomes a problem. (It's also why the Ford vehicle mention was relevant; I'm assuming they don't have wheelchair accommodations) Where it's possible to have a driver/vehicle who can operate a RIDE trip then turn back into an Uber/Lyft, that's inherently more efficient than two separate trips (at least one of which implies an empty leg). That doesn't justify cutting the service down on cost grounds, but it does merit asking if there are situations where new market entrants could more efficiently take on some of these trips (where appropriate, and it's not going to be the bulk of them, likely).
No, the drivers are the ones subsidizing the ride with poverty wages. This is how these companies provide a cheap service, it's not tech wizardry its not paying workers enough (and not wanting to even call them workers). Those investors can be really made to subsidize it with taxes, if you want to target them put it on capital gains.
[Begin pedantic interlude.] You're right it's not tech wizardry, and you're not wrong about their dreadful labor practices, but JumboBuc is also right in that investor dollars are propping up these companies and subsidizing fares. That they pay drivers a pittance is a big part of how they keep getting investors and why they fly so far off the handle whenever anyone tries to make them treat their employees well, but the drivers are not, technically speaking, subsidizing the rides and the investors are. (The drivers are, however, getting screwed by the investors and the companies, but "working for the available wages" whether out of choice or necessity cannot properly be called a subsidy without stretching the term beyond useful meaning.) [End pedantic interlude.]
Bluebikes is good, especially with the discounts, its such a good deal and I'm glad it is public. But It has not been everywhere I have needed it to be, even within core areas of the network. Parts of Boston are only getting stations now. The best thing about it is the way it is expanding consistently and is filling in gaps. But there are definitely still gaps. I agree that it should be kept in the current hands for now but better partnership with the T could help clear up a challenge for new stations (space).
I like the idea of integrating transit systems and I like the idea of expanding public services. Maybe the T as is is not equipped to handle it. I don't like applying market logic to public services.
And here I am thinking that market logic, or at least a derivative of it, is
exactly what public services lack. Not a profit motive, that one they absolutely don't need, but the lack of competition - and, annoyingly, lack of competent oversight, especially by the political masters - and lack of market-based incentive structures is, in my view,
absolutely harmful. If the MBTA were a private business, it's distinctly likely that they would be far more proactive in working with BlueBikes, because increasing accessibility to their services would likely increase the use of said services and therefore their revenue. The incentive is technically there for them now, but since they're a public entity that doesn't really ever have to be motivated to do, well, anything unless the politicians get annoyed, they're more likely to ignore efforts to cooperate until they can be bothered, rather than running the risk of a competitor getting involved. (Public services not tending to have competitors is kind of a big factor.) There's a lot of bureaucratic inertia and far less of a market analysis of what the organization is doing, what it is supposed to be doing, and how best to do so, because the incentive structure weighs against (or at least not in favor of) it. To the extent that market logic is solely defined as about costs and prices and cuts and screwing people over, sure, that's not a good thing, because that's not the point of public services. The point of public services is to serve the public, and they ought to do so as well and efficiently as possible, and some market logic on that end (i.e., how do we do things the most efficiently and effectively, including adopting practices from other industries or competitors, and, perhaps, making significant changes that are ultimately beneficial) is in the public interest.
