Thanks for the interesting information.
It seems like what you're advocating is that the TA and subsidized privates keep the money-losers, while new, unsubsidized companies pick up new money-makers (or at least routes that you think are money-makers -- I'm not convinced). Now, the entire reason the TA runs money-losers in the first place is that it's a transit agency. Shouldn't the TA also be allowed to run money-makers? If not, everybody has to pay greater subsidies to allow the money-losers to stay in service, while a few private companies make profits off the money-makers. Where are those profits coming from? The taxpayers, paying to support the TA's money-losing network.
If we're going to insist the TA and subsidized privates run money-losing routes, we also need to grant the TA and subsidized privates exclusive license to the money-making routes.
Now, if you have any specific ideas for money-making routes that don't currently exist, why not suggest them to the TA? They'll better serve the community and they'll lower our taxes (or free up more money to be spent elsewhere in the transit network).