Bloomberg Against Privatizing Subways
by Lewis DerkinsJuly 31st, 2008, 9:44 pm
Mayor Bloomberg has come out against privatizing subways in response to Mayor Paterson’s call to sell state infrastructure to cover a budget shortfall.
“You could get somebody to do it, but they wouldn’t save you very much money because the potential for making a lot of money isn’t there,” he said.
Bingo, Bloomberg.
The unspoken, but very true, implication of this statement is that if you privatize the subways, the costs for average people will go through the roof.
What a surprise since these things are the most heavily subsidized form of transportation in existence on a percent subsidy per-user basis.
Hey Bloomberg, you clown, here’s another idea about how not to kill mass transit – don’t institute congestion pricing and take the cars that pay for your subways off the roads. Giving cars this disincentive would be especially catastrophic during the current gas crunch given the fact that your system can’t handle the volume of riders it has now.
Mass transit is both necessary and beneficial to New York’s transportation. It’s only going to remain that way if you don’t kill it with your anti-car policies.
Doofus.
Posted in Privatization, Subways |
New York long ago decided that it would rather have no new subway lines than have privately financed subway lines. And that’s what it has: no new subway lines. Maybe in the 8th decade of planning the nationalized MTA will be ablse to cobble together a couple of miles of the 2nd avenue subway, but I doubt you’ll ever see that line built.
It’s the not costs that will be the problem, but the degree of coverage. Private companies are only interested in operating on the most heavily trafficked routs since they lack the ability to raise enough capital to create a full transportation system. So you’d have great service, at a similar (or higher) cost on the major corridors and terrible, non-existent service elsewhere. More people would end up driving.
Bloomy’s right. That’s not the way to go. Private companies are good at many things but projects that require huge amounts of capital and only make marginal profits– while providing essential public benefits might not do as well when “left to the market.”
Why would you a run a subway train on a low traffic route? Anyway, NYC’s subway problems are not that there are low trafficed routes but that capacity is inadequate on existing corridors and those corridors don’t extend far enough into unserved areas. The MTA has no ability to handle expansions. You are prefering the MTA to build new lines and run them at discount prices over a privately run route priced to allow a return on invsetment. The problem is that the line you are comparing to the private line does not exist and never will.
By the way, under your theory I guess outlying areas wouldn’t be wired for telephone, gas, cable tv, etc., because the rapacious companies running those services could only turn a profit in densely populated or wealthy areas.