That they know a lot about me I don’t dispute.
The point is that Google solves a different problem that LA transit:
Google: How can we retain employees? Answer: Among other perks, make their commute easy.
Mass transit: How can we get anyone with three bucks between any two given stations in the coverage area?
Different economics entirely. Also, a company does not have to be into information technology at all to run buses; all it needs is enough profit and an employee sign-up sheet.
That was not the point of the Google bus example. Here was the point:
Needless to say, roads are a tangled mess in most of those Democrat-controlled cities.
I mentioned mass transit (I will get to why) but that was not the main goal. The goal was to unclog roads, save time for workers to spend more of it with their families, save energy, and reduce the wasted real estate for parking. In terms of congestion and wasted time commuting, services such as Google bus work toward solving those problems.
Also mentioned in the post was ride-sharing sites. A rider willing to allow a third party with a proven record of maintaining privacy while compiling and qualifying their data (as validated by their insurers) then reduces trip miles and numbers of cars on the road, parking demands, etc. ALL of that builds wealth by making better use of capital at less expense of time and money. Those services exist. They are under attack by Democrats. In my opinion, they have the combined potential to reduce trip miles by one third. Add more intelligent integrated material delivery systems and the roads would run like they haven't in forty years and without need for expensive infrastructure projects to enlarge the system. No more union and developer payoffs.
You probably noted that I did not mention fixed rail, despite the fact that the entire New York subway system was built by private rail companies. Well, the Internet and the bus have basically eliminated much of the reason to go back to that. As bandwidth capacity grows and real time online meetings improve, the demand for commuting will drop.
I regard ridding ourselves of public transit as at least a tertiary goal but the mechanics are related to the first two (which is why I mentioned it). There are several types of public transit riders. Those who don't own cars but have a safe record (including minors), the infirm, those avoiding traffic or the time to drive, and those too hazardous to have on a private bus or car. Travel vouchers could handle the first two, ranging in price from bidding by drivers to the Outreach program we have here in the Bay Area. The travel vouchers could use both of those first two levels of service.
As to the third level, well, now they have a real reason for good behavior but even there a voucher system would work for those cabs with sufficient internal barriers that somebody would insure them but one would obviously not get far on their travel voucher at a price like that. Public transit exclusively for the criminal class (beyond Air Force One) is not a big political seller. We constructivists do believe in behavior modification, but primarily by allowing the market to work.