Study Shows Better Data & Apps Improve Public Transit Usage... So Why Do So Many Transit Authorites Block Useful Apps?
from the questions-worth-asking dept
We've noted before the odd fact that various transit authorities around the globe have been trying to stop people from making useful transit apps, with things like schedules and whatnot. The argument from those transit authorities is incredibly short-sighted. It usually has something to do with claims about how the scheduling data is "proprietary" and the authority's "intellectual property." The key point, of course, is that they're hoping to make money licensing the data. But that's really short-sighted. As some new studies are showing, better apps and technology make it much easier and enjoyable for people to use public transit. In other words, by allowing people to use the data to make better apps, they could get a lot more long-term riders. You would think that would be the goal...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: data, openness, transit data
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Don't Really Want Riders
Nope. Most public transport agencies are subsidized with tax dollars and, like most other government agencies, their goal is to provide as little service as possible while drawing as much money as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't Really Want Riders
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't Really Want Riders
Yean, damn taxpayers. Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.
How about trying to 'help' rather than just anonymously complain?
Hey, that's funny, one anonymous commenter calling out another for being anonymous. Hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't Really Want Riders
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, they clearly don't want to be efficient. They just want to live comfortably and lazily on public money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The free market naturally chooses the most efficient mode of transportation (to some degree). What are the social costs to vehicled transportation? Fuel and vehicle expenses. More cars and more fuel require more social effort to produce and maintain and so they cost more.
Consumers (in a free market) naturally choose the mode of transportation that costs less (or, to be more specific, the combination of all consumers naturally choose the combination of transportation methods that collectively costs less) and these chosen modes of transportation cost less because they're cheaper to produce and maintain (fewer cars, less vehicle maintenance costs, and less fuel cost less because less of these things are being produced. Also, no taxi cab monopolies means that you have an entire industry willing to put the effort into figuring out how to save fuel every step of the way to cut costs, since that's part of their specialty. As a consumer, we're generally too busy to individually specialize in such things and for each consumer to individually implement strategies of cutting fuel costs creates unnecessary redundancies).
Government imposed taxi cab monopolies exist because monopolists benefit from them. They benefit from them in the form of higher prices. More consumers are willing to pay for taxi cab transportation if the prices were lowered and part of the reason for that is that the lowered prices would reduce everyone's overall transportation costs. Hence it would reduce social transportation costs, those costs come in the form of vehicle expense and fuel costs and the cost in social effort of creating and maintaining more cars and producing more fuel (money can be seen as an attempt to represent effort/social effort). More cars and more fuel is what requires more social effort to produce and maintain and taxi cab monopoly abolition would result in people choosing cheaper transportation methods that are cheaper because they cost less in these things (and they cost less in these things because less of these things are necessary).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Drunk driving would also be less of a problem. More people who plan to get drunk will take a taxi to the places where they plan to drink and back home (since taxi cabs will be far more ubiquitous and cheaper, as they are in other countries without such monopolies) and so a sober person will be driving. This makes things safer not only for the drunks, but for the sober people on the road who would otherwise be endangered by the drunks. Don't let politicians grandstand about "I want to reduce drunk driving fatalities". It's a lie that gives them an excuse to grandstand for political points. If they really wanted to reduce these things, they would abolish the taxi cab monopolies that they create. The only thing they truly care about is the plutocracy that they create, not about the safety and welfare of their citizens or the environment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
reply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: reply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Common knowledge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Common knowledge
The average user is likely to get upset at the public transit company, not the individual app creator. Maybe that's not fair but it seems a reasonable scenario.
If data I publish reflects on me, wouldn't having some control over that data be a reasonable concern?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Common knowledge
Such bad data will also lead people to complain about said app and people will steer other people away from it. Thus teh free market corrects itself as those apps that produce accurate data will get more business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Common knowledge
My thoughts are Google is using some strange source for their traffic info, because it simply isn't correct or can be trusted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Common knowledge
The average user is likely to get upset at the public transit company, not the individual app creator. Maybe that's not fair but it seems a reasonable scenario.
What if a commenter here writes something that's incorrect by accident or even on purpose? Who is at fault?
The average reader is likely to get upset at Techdirt, not the individual commenter. Maybe that's not fair but it seems a reasonable scenario. Therefore, Techdirt should not allow comments, starting with yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Common knowledge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Common knowledge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Under the theory that even if you're in the right, defending yourself would likely bankrupt you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]