Unfair Competition
Competition is good for consumers. When rival grocery stores, restaurants, and oil change places feel the effect of competition, consumers benefit with better service and lower prices. This is free enterprise at work. Most important for this system to work and be fair to rival competitors is the existence of a level playing field. That balance is often upset by government interference with the marketplace.
For example, if the government decided tomorrow to go into the business of selling fruit because they felt citizens were not getting prices it deemed appropriate, that would be unfair competition. Private fruit sellers would not be able to compete with the artificially low prices that government could provide and thousands would be out of work.
The same goes for transportation. Up until a few weeks ago, consumers had several choices on how to get to and from the airport. The cheapest way is to get a friend to drive you, but if that isn’t possible, you could drive yourself and park at one of the many publicly and privately owned lots, or take a taxi or shuttle service.
Now consumers have a newer cheaper option: a COTA airport shuttle. COTA unveiled its “sleek” shuttle buses with much fanfare earlier this month. The transit authority decided on a $5 per trip fare, which is significantly less expensive than either a taxi or private shuttle. Currently a taxi ride from the airport will cost you about $16 and a private shuttle runs roughly $8.50, both pretty good deals, until COTA came along.
Will consumers benefit from this new option? Perhaps a few. Is this fair competition under a capitalist system? Absolutely not. When determining a fare for a taxi or private shuttle, an operator must consider several factors. He must consider the cost of the vehicle, gas and the numerous regulations that the City of Columbus imposes on him. He then must look at what other businesses are charging and set a competitive price. Finally, he must consider a profit in order to pay for the essential things in life, like feeding his family. COTA doesn’t have to consider any of these things.
COTA doesn’t have to worry about the cost of doing business because it is permanently funded through taxpayer dollars. This makes the other concerns moot since they can charge any price they want without concerning themselves with the need to make a profit. Why COTA needs to enter the airport transportation market is unclear. The needs of airline passengers were already being met with private options. Why on earth should taxpayers be forced to pay for trips to and from the airport?
Every city should be fortunate enough to have low-cost transportation for those who would rather leave the car at home, or those who cannot afford any other means. COTA has often argued that this is the key to their mission: providing transportation to those who would be underserved in a private marketplace. COTA’s airport shuttle, however, does not fill an otherwise unfulfilled need.
There should be limits to the services that a publicly funded transit authority provides. Should they operate their own taxis? What about car and van rentals? Just as a government owned fruit business should not be allowed to “compete” with private fruit businesses, a taxpayer funded shuttle bus should not be allowed to “compete” with taxis and private transportation providers that were already meeting the needs of their customers. Being in the private transportation business is not easy. Not only must cab drivers and shuttle operators deal with skyrocketing gas prices, long hours and for cabbies, one of the most dangerous professions around, they now must compete with COTA and their taxpayer-subsidized bargain basement fares.
