Privatize the New York City Subway System

[Mtatransit]

I'm of the belief that partial privatization of the system could work if done right. It's not as if the current situation is working so well, so the idea that government is working is a blatant lie. The system is experiencing more delays than ever, and the infrastructure is deteriorating by the day. If privatization could drive down bloated costs I say why not? Some union workers are grossly overpaid and I think we need to eliminate certain "entitlements" to get costs down. Looking at the private sector, raises are given based on merit, not how long you work somewhere, and that's how it should be done. Those who work should be rewarded. There's a good amount of laziness around being rewarded, and that's one of the problems. Falsification of signal work and on and on...

 

What's in it for the private company to inherit an infrastructure that desperately need replacement and modernization, AND take blame from both Government and riders alike. Why do you think they'll want to take over...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

What's in it for the private company to inherit an infrastructure that desperately need replacement and modernization, AND take blame from both Government and riders alike. Why do you think they'll want to take over...

If done right it can be profitable.  I didn't say take over the entire thing... I said partially privatized.  Let the focus on other aspects that the know and let the private sector deal with what they know.  For starters, the should sell off property they own within the subway system.  They aren't taking advantage of that real estate and making any real profit from it.  

[Mtatransit]

So what does "partial" means?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

So what does "partial" means?

Just what I said... Partial... It could even be similar to the idea floated around for Penn Station where the maintains all of the tracks and signals and maybe allows for the actual stations themselves to be maintained privately.  Give the naming rights and everything to a private company.  It's already done anyway.  You have some entrances to the subway that are maintained privately and closed after certain hours. The 42nd street-Bryant Park station is an example.  This idea has been floated around before where for example, the naming rights of the station would be sold, etc.  If the station is maintained nicely and clean, I don't give a hoot what they call it. They could also perhaps kick the vagabonds out too since I don't think it would be treated as a public space, but rather a private one.

[Mtatransit]

Yes this may results in cleaner stations (maybe) BUT how will it solve the issue that were facing here, which is unreliable train service, aging signals, and deteriorating conditions? It does nothing to solve any commuters problems.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Yes this may results in cleaner stations (maybe) BUT how will it solve the issue that were facing here, which is unreliable train service, aging signals, and deteriorating conditions? It does nothing to solve any commuters problems.

Sure it does. It allows the to concentrate solely on track work and signals. Additionally keeping vagabonds out should help deal with littering, etc.

[BreeddekalbL]

zoned fares? people would revolt, look down at DC

[bobtehpanda]

What's in it for the private company to inherit an infrastructure that desperately need replacement and modernization, AND take blame from both Government and riders alike. Why do you think they'll want to take over...

 

Private companies, quite frankly, could give less of a shit about getting blame. After all, they run prisons and school lunch, both public systems with terrible press.

[Mtatransit]

Sure it does. It allows the to concentrate solely on track work and signals. Additionally keeping vagabonds out should help deal with littering, etc.

Don't see a problem with that as long as some of the station profit go find track improvement and consistancy among different station operators. One problem Which operator would like to take over Beach 105 St?

Private companies, quite frankly, could give less of a shit about getting blame. After all, they run prisons and school lunch, both public systems with terrible press.

Yeah your right profit and wall St is top priority, but bad publicity = bad stock prices, just look at what happened to United

[bobtehpanda]

Don't see a problem with that as long as some of the station profit go find track improvement and consistancy among different station operators. One problem Which operator would like to take over Beach 105 St?

Yeah your right profit and wall St is top priority, but bad publicity = bad stock prices, just look at what happened to United

 

On the flip side (and more relevant, since I am not aware of any cases where an MTA employee has assaulted a rider without provocation), the UK's privately run railways seem to be doing rather nicely for themselves profit wise.

[SubwayGuy]

All privatization will do is add exorbitant executive compensation (>1 million dollars per year) to fixed costs, plus the costs of actually turning a profit.

 

It won't add any efficiency at all, contrary to popular belief.

 

And everyone can pay $7 a fare, with express buses jumping to $15, and tolls on all MTA crossings close to doubling.

 

When those price gouges promote a suitable level of executive bloat at the top like a private corporation, then the private company will look for more efficiencies to further grow executive pay and profits, like all American businesses, and then you will get inferior service to what even exists today, for these exorbitant costs.

 

This will drive people to other forms of transportation which will magnify the problem, and create nightmare traffic and congestion on NYC streets far worse than today.

 

Privatization is not the answer.

 

The problem with Transit in NYC is:

-the lack of political will for politicians to make grand improvements to the subway which is the most efficient means of moving people around

-the lack of oversight by any of the "transit focused foundations" that assist in governance and setting policy - most of them are actually bike nazi groups, or hippie environmentalist groups in disguise, and are more concerned about penalizing car use than actually substantively improving transportation (multi-modally) in NYC

-the lack of system expansion since the 1950s

-the lack of dedicated funding for the MTA and the willingness of city and state government to encourage the MTA to borrow and pay interest instead of avoiding the high cost of interest by not having to borrow funds

-wasted dollars on half measures like select bus service, or possibly sending the F express in Brooklyn that offer no substantive improvements to service, but don't treat the core condition (overcrowding)

-Foolish real estate policies that encourage developers to build taller buildings in already densely populated areas where the infrastructure (not just transit - all infrastructure) is inadequate to support such a higher population, in exchange for overly generous tax breaks.

-The lack of any policy to force developers who build mega projects to contribute towards a general fund to improve the infrastructure of these areas, including transportation.

 

If that doesn't get treated, transit will always be crappy.

[Deucey]

So:

 

1) a dedicated sales tax on taxable purchases to fund and DOT bridges

2) City control of NYCTA with Borough presidents sittimg and voting on board decisions (like county supervisors do on other transportation authorities) along with gubernatorial and mayoral appointees - Let MTA run the railroads (and TBTA since those crossings connect interstate highways - which happen to be state responsibilities); and

3) An actual construction authority with the remit to (re)build specific lines and dissolved once those lines major (re)construction is completed, like LA does for their new rail infrastructure.

[bobtehpanda]

So:

 

1) a dedicated sales tax on taxable purchases to fund and DOT bridges

2) City control of NYCTA with Borough presidents sittimg and voting on board decisions (like county supervisors do on other transportation authorities) along with gubernatorial and mayoral appointees - Let MTA run the railroads (and TBTA since those crossings connect interstate highways - which happen to be state responsibilities); and

3) An actual construction authority with the remit to (re)build specific lines and dissolved once those lines major (re)construction is completed, like LA does for their new rail infrastructure.

 

Really, if you were to switch the MTA Board's representatives from appointees to elected officials, you'd probably solve most of the problem. The last time we had issues with elected officials running MTA, it was because one person was doing it.

 

So mayor, City Council Speaker, 5 BPs, County Executives for the rest of the MTA region, and the Governor, Assembly Speaker and Senate Majority Leader, with the current quarter vote for all the outer county executives.

 

Alternatively, if you devolved the buses and subway to the City (along with MTA Manhattan crossings & Whitestone), you could probably solve the funding problem as well. Then the MTA could exist mostly as a commuter agency, and also coordinate stuff like Metrocard.

[Italianstallion]

Same old libertarian shit. They privatized commuter rail and long-distance rail in Britain. Now everyone's so fed up with service they want to nationalize it again.

You get the union out of the picture

 

And how will privatization accomplish that?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Same old libertarian shit. They privatized commuter rail and long-distance rail in Britain. Now everyone's so fed up with service they want to nationalize it again.

 

And how will privatization accomplish that?

Well clearly you don't rely on it every day to get to work or anywhere else that's important, so what do you know?  Yes, people are fed up, and they have every right to be.  While people talk about how highly subsidized the cost of a ride is, the truth of the matter is we pay through the nose in taxes and other fees that go back to the .  There's a surcharge on every cell phone bill that goes to the , plus the surcharge for every taxi ride taken that goes to the , along with the fees they get from the bridges and tunnels, so they nickel and dime us to death, then turn around and claim they need more funding.  Well that's something that the city and the State should work out. Since the city has relinquished control over the subways, they've done their bare minimum to provide funding, and while they've increased their share, they're swimming in money right now and could contribute much more than what they are, but de Blasio will turn it all on Cuomo and say the State needs to give more, which is true, but the city benefits also from having operational subway lines, so the city should be just as interested in seeing the subway progress as the State.  

 

As for privatization, I talked about that earlier in the thread and what I would do.  I'm not re-writing everything again because you can't be bothered to read.

[Italianstallion]

Well clearly you don't rely on it every day to get to work or anywhere else that's important, so what do you know?  Yes, people are fed up, and they have every right to be.  While people talk about how highly subsidized the cost of a ride is, the truth of the matter is we pay through the nose in taxes and other fees that go back to the .  There's a surcharge on every cell phone bill that goes to the , plus the surcharge for every taxi ride taken that goes to the , along with the fees they get from the bridges and tunnels, so they nickel and dime us to death, then turn around and claim they need more funding.  Well that's something that the city and the State should work out. Since the city has relinquished control over the subways, they've done their bare minimum to provide funding, and while they've increased their share, they're swimming in money right now and could contribute much more than what they are, but de Blasio will turn it all on Cuomo and say the State needs to give more, which is true, but the city benefits also from having operational subway lines, so the city should be just as interested in seeing the subway progress as the State.  

 

As for privatization, I talked about that earlier in the thread and what I would do.  I'm not re-writing everything again because you can't be bothered to read.

 

LOL. I can't read? I guess you missed that when I said people are fed up, I was saying people in Britain are fed up with privatization! Go and read it again.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

LOL. I can't read? I guess you missed that when I said people are fed up, I was saying people in Britain are fed up with privatization! Go and read it again.

Who cares about Britain?  This is about New York's subway, and since you want to use that example, we can look at France and how well privatization is working there.  The UK isn't the model to follow, and I don't know who gave you that idea, as if America needs to look to the Brits for everything.

[Italianstallion]

Who cares about Britain?  This is about New York's subway, and since you want to use that example, we can look at France and how well privatization is working there.  The UK isn't the model to follow, and I don't know who gave you that idea, as if America needs to look to the Brits for everything.  

Britain is a relevant example of privatization run amok. Who said we look to them for everything? Red-herrings galore today. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Britain is a relevant example of privatization run amok. Who said we look to them for everything? Red-herrings galore today. 

Apparently you, since you used that as an example of how it doesn't work, but purposely left out examples that are working to fit your agenda.

[Italianstallion]

Apparently you, since you used that as an example of how it doesn't work, but purposely left out examples that are working to fit your agenda.

 

I have no agenda, unlike you who posted for privatization and made irrelevant remarks about unions. I am more familiar with London than other cities. If there are successful privatizations, I would look into them.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I have no agenda, unlike you who posted for privatization and made irrelevant remarks about unions. I am more familiar with London than other cities. If there are successful privatizations, I would look into them.

lol@"irrelevant".  You were given an example of successful privatization... France... It's an even better example given how strong France's unions are, so I have no idea how you can say that unions are irrelevant.  They're very much part of the situation here, as it's been well documented that the unions will only further exacerbate costs going forward.  

[bobtehpanda]

lol@"irrelevant".  You were given an example of successful privatization... France... It's an even better example given how strong France's unions are, so I have no idea how you can say that unions are irrelevant.  They're very much part of the situation here, as it's been well documented that the unions will only further exacerbate costs going forward.  

 

SNCF is completely state owned...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

SNCF is completely state owned...

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that at least part of the system was privatized.

[Yankees4life]

Privatize the Subway?? No thanks...

[RES2773]

If the main issue here is that we need to use money better, privatization is not the answer. It will most likely just add more costs. Also, there are better, more efficient ways to make money. How about putting tolls on bridges to and from Manhattan? It's not like people don't have transit options already.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk