3 ms·

IT has baffled me why government continues to stand in the way of private mass transit. Sydney opened its system up to private lines and it has flourished, wher

IT has baffled me why government continues to stand in the way of private mass transit. Sydney opened its system up to private lines and it has flourished, whereas the DC Metro system is just one more wreck from total collapse.

peterwwillis 7y ago
The problem with private corporations is they typically are after profits, and the best way to lose profits is to provide under-served communities with the same services you use for wealthier ones. If you want to make money, you need to focus on where the most people with the most money live, and let the poor and inconveniently located flounder in their ghettos of transportation isolation. Which is where we are today. We already have private mass transit, in the form of bus and shuttle companies, and we had it in the form of trains. The trains collapsed and the government bailed it out as Amtrak. The buses basically only serve pockets of commuters who don't drive, and the companies may receive subsidies. I don't see why you think the government is standing in the way. The way is just not profitable (or in the case of contracted companies, sometimes a little too profitable)
munk-a 7y ago
Governments should be heavily subsidizing public transit, it provides extremely good benefits to city growth, health and the environment. I don't personally object to private mass transit, but it can't compete with a system that can be afforded to take a loss year after year unless: 1. The privatized portions are the high profit portions of the lines - so essentially the public is subsidizing these private companies by paying for the last mile coverage without the marginally profitable backbone. 2. Privatized transit companies use regulatory capture to hamstring public transit (i.e. Comcast and municipal internet) 3. The public company is so unbearably inefficient that a private company can make a profit through direct competition - as stereotypical as it is to think of government organizations as being poorly run this still usually doesn't leave enough of a gap between public funding and corruption to find a profitable region that the public company can't match. So, I'm fine with private mass transit so long as the companies go bankrupt, in any other case I would suspect that some pretty massive corruption is happening either within the public corporation or of the private one influencing the government.
einpoklum 7y ago
The UK stopped "standing in the way" of private rail, and the result was a royal mess (and an overpriced one to boot).
timbit42 7y ago
Information Technology has baffled...?

peterwwillis 7y ago

The problem with private corporations is they typically are after profits, and the best way to lose profits is to provide under-served communities with the same services you use for wealthier ones. If you want to make money, you need to focus on where the most people with the most money live, and let the poor and inconveniently located flounder in their ghettos of transportation isolation. Which is where we are today. We already have private mass transit, in the form of bus and shuttle companies, and we had it in the form of trains. The trains collapsed and the government bailed it out as Amtrak. The buses basically only serve pockets of commuters who don't drive, and the companies may receive subsidies. I don't see why you think the government is standing in the way. The way is just not profitable (or in the case of contracted companies, sometimes a little too profitable)

munk-a 7y ago

Governments should be heavily subsidizing public transit, it provides extremely good benefits to city growth, health and the environment. I don't personally object to private mass transit, but it can't compete with a system that can be afforded to take a loss year after year unless: 1. The privatized portions are the high profit portions of the lines - so essentially the public is subsidizing these private companies by paying for the last mile coverage without the marginally profitable backbone. 2. Privatized transit companies use regulatory capture to hamstring public transit (i.e. Comcast and municipal internet) 3. The public company is so unbearably inefficient that a private company can make a profit through direct competition - as stereotypical as it is to think of government organizations as being poorly run this still usually doesn't leave enough of a gap between public funding and corruption to find a profitable region that the public company can't match. So, I'm fine with private mass transit so long as the companies go bankrupt, in any other case I would suspect that some pretty massive corruption is happening either within the public corporation or of the private one influencing the government.

einpoklum 7y ago

The UK stopped "standing in the way" of private rail, and the result was a royal mess (and an overpriced one to boot).

timbit42 7y ago

Information Technology has baffled...?