4 ms·
Public transit in the U.S. could benefite greatly from privatization. In the U.S. we don't nationalize heavy or large industries because the President lacks th
by cryptonector 7y ago
Public transit in the U.S. could benefite greatly from privatization.
In the U.S. we don't nationalize heavy or large industries because the President lacks the power for it (see the Steel Cases), Congress mostly won't bother, and the States have to compete with each other, so they know better. But the cities, oh boy, the cities love nationalizing, and what have they nationalized? Transit. NYC's subways were built and operated by private companies until around WWII, when after twenty years of starving them of fare increases, the city finally acquired them. NYC used to have great trolleys and buses, but now its bus system is no good, not in comparison to, say, Buenos Aires' bus system.
I mentioned Buenos Aires. The bus system there is privately owned and operated, and it is fantastic. In Argentina the federal government is extremely powerful, so over the years they've nationalized (and privatized, and nationalized, ...) lots of things, while the provinces and cities have little power. When a government nationalizes enterprises, it tends to nationalize the ones that capture its imagination/attention -the big ones-, and the bigger the government, then bigger their targets. So the bus system in Buenos Aires gets spared because it's small potatoes to the central government. Meanwhile, in NYC, where only the City has the power and inclination to nationalize anything (the State and the Feds don't or don't bother), all they get to nationalize is... city-level enterprises -- and public transit fits that bill. What they did not nationalize in NYC, they regulated (taxis!).
This pattern repeats all over the U.S., and so most everywhere you go in the U.S., if there's public buses, they run no more often than every 20 or 30 minutes at rush hour, no more often than every hour otherwise, and not at all over night.
If you want better public transit, privatize it. Let the market go nuts and see how it goes.
- sokoloff 7y agoIf you want better public transit that optimizes to serve only profitable routes, privatize it and "let the market go nuts". I'm generally nearly fanatically free market, but there are elements of mass transit that need to serve unprofitable routes, just like the USPS, legacy POTS telephone, and electric company [all of which have significant government restrictions that ensure they serve unprofitable areas].
- bluGill 7y agoI don't see any public transit serving the farms just outside my city even though those farmers would benefit. Until public transit serves them your argument is invalid. Private public transit companies will operate some unprofitable routes letting the profitable routes subsidies them. They know that in some cases the customer satisfaction that comes from people being able to get to those places with little demand is worth running unprofitable routes. I won't speculate on how many they run - other than to state that they will constantly reevaluate all such routes)
- cryptonector 7y agoThat's the thing, in Buenos Aires the bus system has an enormous number of routes -- many more than NYC's.
- wycy 7y agoTo my knowledge, there's nothing stopping a private company from going into these cities and setting up a private bus system and absolutely eating the lunch of the public system if it's going to end up being so much better. So why isn't this happening?
- cryptonector 7y agoI bet you can't get bus stops.