The whole argument about "inefficiency of duplicative services" is an idea that needs to die.

Whether its the Soviet Union trying to optimize shampoo production to create a single "shampoo" brand or a health care provider requiring a "certificate of need" [0] to open up, the results are always the same: no competition, bad service, low supply and high prices

[0] https://www.health.ny.gov/facilities/cons/

> So its like a more expensive version of public transportation,

Most US public transit systems are funded by taxes in addition to fares. The true cost of a bus ride can be many times the ticket price. If the services doesn't provide enough value for the service, let the customer decide.

> that also causes more traffic congestion and pollution because you've got a ton of cars on the road doing the job of a single bus/trolley/train

Buses are huge obstacles to the free flow of traffic (e.g. blocking right turns, slow left turns, blocking car and bike lanes with width) and are heavy polluters (diesel powered, oversized for most of their operating time).

Public transit agencies want to outlaw services like Chariot (https://sf.curbed.com/2019/1/10/18177528/chariot-san-francis...) because they don't want the competition.

This is actually just competing with exhausting "competiton" in this space.

In NYC we got dollar vans.

https://queenseagle.com/all/dollar-van-transit-system

It seems like it is targeted at people who currently commute by car. It could be a net benefit if the number of car riders who use it outnumber the amount of people it cannibalizes from public transportation.

Yeah

In Mexico they have these public transport vans and small buses (called combis and micro buses) that are truly a plague in bigger cities. Lots of pollution, lots of traffic, etc. It works for small cities but it just doesn't scale when you need to move millions.

In some routes they've been replaced by a metrobus[1] but still plenty of those vans around.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City_Metrob%C3%BAs