5 ms·

Is it typical for a company to run the busses? Somewhat interesting as that's one thing in the US that is rarely privatized. The driver, etc. will be a direct e

by 14u2c 2mo ago

Is it typical for a company to run the busses? Somewhat interesting as that's one thing in the US that is rarely privatized. The driver, etc. will be a direct employees of the municipality.

klausa 2mo ago
They're usually private companies owned by the cities.
- master-lincoln 2mo ago
  Can something be private and owned by a state? Isn't the definition of private: non-public? And wouldn't the government in a democratic state count as public?
  - klausa 2mo ago
    "Public company" is a very specific thing; the BVG is state owned, but very much not a public company.
    - lotsofpulp 2mo ago
      In the US, “public” can be short for a private business with publicly listed shares on a stock exchange anyone can buy, or public can mean an organization owned and operated by the government.
      - klausa 2mo ago
        Perhaps the fact that we’re having this discussion on HN shows the kind of media I’m likely to consume, but I’ve never seen it used in the latter sense. TIL, I guess!
      - overfeed 1mo ago
        > public can mean an organization owned and operated by the government. Would you consider In-Q-Tel - wholly owned by the CIA - to be a public venture* through ownership by a government agency, or a private one, because the public has no opportunity of ownership or control? I'm convinced it's the latter. * Let's ignore it's non-profit status. Any CIA shell-/front-company is an even better example
      - WhyNotHugo 1mo ago
        The first of those is a "publicly traded company", which Americans often call "public", but is entirely different to an actual public company.
  - freehorse 2mo ago
    "Public enterprises" are different kinds of enterprises, with different structure and governed by different regulations/laws than private enterprises. "State owned private enterprises" have all the structure etc of a private enterprise, their only difference being that they are owned (fully or by majority) by some state body.
  - PurpleRamen 1mo ago
    Yes, it can. Many public services in Germany are legally private companies, which just happen to be owned by public entities. Main reason seems to be that they can act more flexible and independent of public rules. On a more nasty side, it's also easier to sell them partly or full, if necessary. And in some cases they simply started as private companies and were bought up by the state for various reasons.
master-lincoln 2mo ago
Normally municipalities own companies that do the public transport service in Germany
ido 2mo ago
It's usually a company owned by the city or the state, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berliner_Verkehrsbetriebe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berliner_Verkehrsbetriebe
dathinab 1mo ago
in EU it's normal - a company run the busses - its partially of fully owned by the city/state, i.e. NOT private investors, not private liquidity, no one expects any payouts - its commonly a special form of "company", e.g. "Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts" in this case which you can roughly read as "installment/company based on public-law" Practical that is "mostly" the same as state run when looking at it from a distance. But with some differences. Like it's still a company, has it's own company structure, it's own bookkeeping, it's own employees etc. This leads to a much more clean separation when it comes to budged managing, and where possible removes/reduces direct political influence into daily operations (just direct one, indirectly through ownership etc. there is very much still influence, but this makes it somewhat less suspect to damage from changing political parties non stop changing directions). Through things can get far more complicated then just one company, in one legal form.
- account42 1mo ago
  > just direct one, indirectly through ownership Well also through funding.
rsynnott 1mo ago
It will often be a company owned by the state. In Ireland, most buses are run by CIE, a state company. In Dublin, for the last couple of decades, some routes have been run by GoAhead, a private company (Dublin Bus (part of CIE) and GoAhead tender for the routes). It's been a fascinating experiment in privatisation; the buses all use TFI livery, so the only way to tell whether your route is run by Dublin Bus or GoAhead, besides looking it up, is that if it's Dublin Bus, it'll just be late; if it's GoAhead it won't show up at all. For all that people complain about public sector inefficiency, private companies turn out to be very, very bad at competing with the public sector.
MisterTea 1mo ago
Depends. NYC busses used to be a mix of municipal and privatized companies that were part of the Transit Alliance. In addition to city owned and operated buses you had four private companies: Green Bus Lines, Jamaica Buses, Triborough Transit and Command. Around the mid 00s they were all absorbed into the MTA. Living in south Queens the Green Bus Lines were a big part of my youth as I took the Q41 to school every day and the Q11 on weekends to the mall.

by 14u2c 2mo ago

Is it typical for a company to run the busses? Somewhat interesting as that's one thing in the US that is rarely privatized. The driver, etc. will be a direct employees of the municipality.

klausa 2mo ago

They're usually private companies owned by the cities.

master-lincoln 2mo ago
Can something be private and owned by a state? Isn't the definition of private: non-public? And wouldn't the government in a democratic state count as public?
- klausa 2mo ago
  "Public company" is a very specific thing; the BVG is state owned, but very much not a public company.
  - lotsofpulp 2mo ago
    In the US, “public” can be short for a private business with publicly listed shares on a stock exchange anyone can buy, or public can mean an organization owned and operated by the government.
    - klausa 2mo ago
      Perhaps the fact that we’re having this discussion on HN shows the kind of media I’m likely to consume, but I’ve never seen it used in the latter sense. TIL, I guess!
    - overfeed 1mo ago
      > public can mean an organization owned and operated by the government. Would you consider In-Q-Tel - wholly owned by the CIA - to be a public venture* through ownership by a government agency, or a private one, because the public has no opportunity of ownership or control? I'm convinced it's the latter. * Let's ignore it's non-profit status. Any CIA shell-/front-company is an even better example
    - WhyNotHugo 1mo ago
      The first of those is a "publicly traded company", which Americans often call "public", but is entirely different to an actual public company.
- freehorse 2mo ago
  "Public enterprises" are different kinds of enterprises, with different structure and governed by different regulations/laws than private enterprises. "State owned private enterprises" have all the structure etc of a private enterprise, their only difference being that they are owned (fully or by majority) by some state body.
- PurpleRamen 1mo ago
  Yes, it can. Many public services in Germany are legally private companies, which just happen to be owned by public entities. Main reason seems to be that they can act more flexible and independent of public rules. On a more nasty side, it's also easier to sell them partly or full, if necessary. And in some cases they simply started as private companies and were bought up by the state for various reasons.

master-lincoln 2mo ago

Normally municipalities own companies that do the public transport service in Germany

ido 2mo ago

It's usually a company owned by the city or the state, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berliner_Verkehrsbetriebe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berliner_Verkehrsbetriebe

dathinab 1mo ago

in EU it's normal - a company run the busses - its partially of fully owned by the city/state, i.e. NOT private investors, not private liquidity, no one expects any payouts - its commonly a special form of "company", e.g. "Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts" in this case which you can roughly read as "installment/company based on public-law" Practical that is "mostly" the same as state run when looking at it from a distance. But with some differences. Like it's still a company, has it's own company structure, it's own bookkeeping, it's own employees etc. This leads to a much more clean separation when it comes to budged managing, and where possible removes/reduces direct political influence into daily operations (just direct one, indirectly through ownership etc. there is very much still influence, but this makes it somewhat less suspect to damage from changing political parties non stop changing directions). Through things can get far more complicated then just one company, in one legal form.

account42 1mo ago
> just direct one, indirectly through ownership Well also through funding.

rsynnott 1mo ago

It will often be a company owned by the state. In Ireland, most buses are run by CIE, a state company. In Dublin, for the last couple of decades, some routes have been run by GoAhead, a private company (Dublin Bus (part of CIE) and GoAhead tender for the routes). It's been a fascinating experiment in privatisation; the buses all use TFI livery, so the only way to tell whether your route is run by Dublin Bus or GoAhead, besides looking it up, is that if it's Dublin Bus, it'll just be late; if it's GoAhead it won't show up at all. For all that people complain about public sector inefficiency, private companies turn out to be very, very bad at competing with the public sector.

MisterTea 1mo ago

Depends. NYC busses used to be a mix of municipal and privatized companies that were part of the Transit Alliance. In addition to city owned and operated buses you had four private companies: Green Bus Lines, Jamaica Buses, Triborough Transit and Command. Around the mid 00s they were all absorbed into the MTA. Living in south Queens the Green Bus Lines were a big part of my youth as I took the Q41 to school every day and the Q11 on weekends to the mall.