"Most public transit systems around the world lose money."...True.
While one could argue that public owners aren't as efficient or ruthless as private owners vying for suddenly scarce private and public capital, there is a more benign and logical explanation.
Urban mobility is the lifeblood of a city, so subsidizing (i.e. losing money) public transport is a reasonable public policy – to enhance economic growth, vitality and social welfare. All of these good things can help create high-paying jobs, and sell more pints at restaurants and pubs. And governments can thus offset transport losses with the incremental taxes collected on their their services' positive externalities (not to mention, help mayors get re-elected).
But micro-mobility providers (as well as Uber, Bolt and other ridehail providers) have to live only off the prices they can charge. It ain't easy competing against a competitor who is perfectly happy to lose money.
"Most public transit systems around the world lose money."...True.
While one could argue that public owners aren't as efficient or ruthless as private owners vying for suddenly scarce private and public capital, there is a more benign and logical explanation.
Urban mobility is the lifeblood of a city, so subsidizing (i.e. losing money) public transport is a reasonable public policy – to enhance economic growth, vitality and social welfare. All of these good things can help create high-paying jobs, and sell more pints at restaurants and pubs. And governments can thus offset transport losses with the incremental taxes collected on their their services' positive externalities (not to mention, help mayors get re-elected).
But micro-mobility providers (as well as Uber, Bolt and other ridehail providers) have to live only off the prices they can charge. It ain't easy competing against a competitor who is perfectly happy to lose money.