> > This bypasses the intentional sabotage that’s been applied to bay area public transit. Of course, it’ll still be much, much worse than a competent bus system. I wonder how well it will work in other countries.

> Why will it be much much worse?

Off the top of my head:

- Efficiency-wise, it's worse to have two things that do the same thing than to have the one thing work as it's supposed to (keyword being 'supposed to').

- (Overlaps with point 1) Market inefficiencies by having marketing & branding overheads for each service, when a single solution would not need to have it.

------

Whilst I agree it would be worse than having an actual competently-run bus system, having no competition causes perverse incentives (both external & internal) to leech into the system & make it incrementally worse.

At the end of the day, it's a sign that's necessary to point out existing failures. Banning this specific sign from existing only allows the failures to worsen, regardless of the intentions behind banning/regulating it out of existence.