Privatize the New York City Subway System

[Via Garibaldi 8]

A good portion of those neighborhoods were actually built with subway service in mind, the subway just never showed up. Extensions of the into Northeast Queens, the into Eastern Queens, and the into SE Queens have been on the table forever, but every time they got around to building it something (usually in the shape of a fiscal crisis or a war) stopped construction.

Yeah well the same could be said for other neighborhoods, but the fact of the matter is the subway isn't there, and extending them would change those neighborhoods considerably, and likely not a good way.  A lot of the charming neighborhoods are so because they are low density areas with lots of private houses.  You start knocking down those houses and putting in apartment buildings or three houses on the lots where one house once stood, and you'll have a mess just like Staten Island.  

 

When I first moved there it was quite nice. Then all of a sudden you would have one lovely old use that would be torn down by greedy developers and they'd stick in three ugly town houses.  They don't care because all they care about is profit. The people living there have to deal with increased congestion that the infrastructure can't sustain along with all of the other negatives that come with more people.  If an area is meant to change into high density, fine, but often times these things are horribly planned, and it ruins entire neighborhoods.  We need nice small areas like Little Neck, Douglaston and the like.  Not every neighborhood should be built up or have subway access.  Sometimes other services just make more sense.  Look at the Rockaways. Most of the areas near the subway are quite ugly with those hideous Els blocking any view from parts of the Rockaways and not necessarily well thought out. The nicest parts like Neponsit don't have the subway, but the views are amazing.  There's always a trade off.

[bobtehpanda]

Yeah well the same could be said for other neighborhoods, but the fact of the matter is the subway isn't there, and extending them would change those neighborhoods considerably, and likely not a good way.  A lot of the charming neighborhoods are so because they are low density areas with lots of private houses.  You start knocking down those houses and putting in apartment buildings or three houses on the lots where one house once stood, and you'll have a mess just like Staten Island.  

 

When I first moved there it was quite nice. Then all of a sudden you would have one lovely old use that would be torn down by greedy developers and they'd stick in three ugly town houses.  They don't care because all they care about is profit. The people living there have to deal with increased congestion that the infrastructure can't sustain along with all of the other negatives that come with more people.  If an area is meant to change into high density, fine, but often times these things are horribly planned, and it ruins entire neighborhoods.  We need nice small areas like Little Neck, Douglaston and the like.  Not every neighborhood should be built up or have subway access.  Sometimes other services just make more sense.  Look at the Rockaways. Most of the areas near the subway are quite ugly with those hideous Els blocking any view from parts of the Rockaways and not necessarily well thought out. The nicest parts like Neponsit don't have the subway, but the views are amazing.  There's always a trade off.

 

No one is saying 'a subway within a walk from every house.' The fact of the matter is that most of the areas that the subway should be extended to in Queens are already medium density. Rochdale is medium density, Bayside is medium density, Queens Village is medium density, yet these areas already have hour and a half commutes. Areas that you're describing, like Little Neck, Douglaston, and Neponsit, will probably never get a subway because it would be too expensive to justify.

 

In fact, having a subway doesn't even mean you have to develop a neighborhood at all. Look at Sunnyside for an example of a historic suburban neighborhood next to a subway.

 

Also, saying that they moved there and they should put up with it is unfair, particularly when in a lot of cases it's now the second generation of people that live out there and didn't really have a say in the matter, yet it's not exactly easy to just sell and move to a more transit accessible area since most of those are more expensive.

[RR503]

Yeah well the same could be said for other neighborhoods, but the fact of the matter is the subway isn't there, and extending them would change those neighborhoods considerably, and likely not a good way.  A lot of the charming neighborhoods are so because they are low density areas with lots of private houses.  You start knocking down those houses and putting in apartment buildings or three houses on the lots where one house once stood, and you'll have a mess just like Staten Island.  

 

When I first moved there it was quite nice. Then all of a sudden you would have one lovely old use that would be torn down by greedy developers and they'd stick in three ugly town houses.  They don't care because all they care about is profit. The people living there have to deal with increased congestion that the infrastructure can't sustain along with all of the other negatives that come with more people.  If an area is meant to change into high density, fine, but often times these things are horribly planned, and it ruins entire neighborhoods.  We need nice small areas like Little Neck, Douglaston and the like.  Not every neighborhood should be built up or have subway access.  Sometimes other services just make more sense.  Look at the Rockaways. Most of the areas near the subway are quite ugly with those hideous Els blocking any view from parts of the Rockaways and not necessarily well thought out. The nicest parts like Neponsit don't have the subway, but the views are amazing.  There's always a trade off.

 

Also, to add on to BTP's points, where's that love for the free market? Much of our city's affordability crisis stems from this thinking -- restrictive zoning, ridiculous building codes, and just plain old NIMBYism. If we liberalized construction practices while mandating that developers contribute to infrastructure improvements, our city could benefit from a new wave of construction that would finally loosen our constricted market. And as for the aesthetic quality of these new developments, builders have a vested interest in coordinating appearance. 1. they don't want to piss off the community too much, and 2. no one wants to live in a house/building that sticks out like a sore thumb. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Also, to add on to BTP's points, where's that love for the free market? Much of our city's affordability crisis stems from this thinking -- restrictive zoning, ridiculous building codes, and just plain old NIMBYism. If we liberalized construction practices while mandating that developers contribute to infrastructure improvements, our city could benefit from a new wave of construction that would finally loosen our constricted market. And as for the aesthetic quality of these new developments, builders have a vested interest in coordinating appearance. 1. they don't want to piss off the community too much, and 2. no one wants to live in a house/building that sticks out like a sore thumb. 

I'm all for the free market and the market correcting itself.  However, as someone who lives in a neighborhood with beautiful homes from the 1920s (several of which are on my block) that simply can't be replicated these days, I very much appreciate how unique those houses are, and like many of my neighbors, am interested in maintaining the character of the neighborhood.  Zoning laws exist for a reason, and it's fine to say that developers can contribute to infrastructure improvements, but it goes beyond that.  A developer's main goal is maximizing profit, and they usually don't give a damn if that means destroying communities in the process.  Areas like the Upper East Side and Riverdale with sizable historic districts have had the wherewithal to form private committees and hire attorneys to fight tooth and nail to ensure that developers don't go overboard with their investment projects.  It's the same thing that Harlem is doing by fighting greedy real estate brokers looking to capitalize on their community by coming up with that stupid name "SoHa".  After tons of pressure and outrage, that company has agreed to call their office something else and do away with that nonsense, as it's an insult to the history that Harlem has.

 

New York City is always evolving, but we cannot forget about our past.   We have to build smart and within reason.  Building massive complexes that are out of character with the community's needs creates the kind of congestion that we're seeing on Staten Island.  It isn't enough to say let's put in more infrastructure and subways because one size fits all simply doesn't work.  I am a proud NIMBY and I understand why those who fight such projects do.  

 

A lack of affordable housing is due mainly to too many rent stabilized apartments and not enough apartments being at market rate. This is where I say let the free market work.  If demand for luxury developments aren't there, developers will be forced to build what people need or lose their investment. For example, one bedrooms in my area usually start around $1,800 and go up to $2,300 depending on the amenities, and it's crazy to have people paying substantially lower amounts, lowering demand and driving up prices even further than they should be.

[RR503]

I'm all for the free market and the market correcting itself.  However, as someone who lives in a neighborhood with beautiful homes from the 1920s (several of which are on my block) that simply can't be replicated these days, I very much appreciate how unique those houses are, and like many of my neighbors, am interested in maintaining the character of the neighborhood.  Zoning laws exist for a reason, and it's fine to say that developers can contribute to infrastructure improvements, but it goes beyond that.  A developer's main goal is maximizing profit, and they usually don't give a damn if that means destroying communities in the process.  Areas like the Upper East Side and Riverdale with sizable historic districts have had the wherewithal to form private committees and hire attorneys to fight tooth and nail to ensure that developers don't go overboard with their investment projects.  It's the same thing that Harlem is doing by fighting greedy real estate brokers looking to capitalize on their community by coming up with that stupid name "SoHa".  After tons of pressure and outrage, that company has agreed to call their office something else and do away with that nonsense, as it's an insult to the history that Harlem has.

 

New York City is always evolving, but we cannot forget about our past.   We have to build smart and within reason.  Building massive complexes that are out of character with the community's needs creates the kind of congestion that we're seeing on Staten Island.  It isn't enough to say let's put in more infrastructure and subways because one size fits all simply doesn't work.  I am a proud NIMBY and I understand why those who fight such projects do.  

 

A lack of affordable housing is due mainly to too many rent stabilized apartments and not enough apartments being at market rate. This is where I say let the free market work.  If demand for luxury developments aren't there, developers will be forced to build what people need or lose their investment. For example, one bedrooms in my area usually start around $1,800 and go up to $2,300 depending on the amenities, and it's crazy to have people paying substantially lower amounts, lowering demand and driving up prices even further than they should be.

 

This is the issue. I am also a fan of historic preservation, but in many cases it goes overboard. Vast swaths of Queens are being downzoned for fear that someone may try to build something that isn't a detached house there. What I'm saying is that we have to strike a balence between the two. If we save everything, we stop progress in its tracks. Sometimes for the good of the city, community charecter has to change. NIMBYs have to accept that sometimes that may be their neighborhood. 

 

I also find it hilarious that you think the issue with affordable housing is the existance of affordable housing. The market these days for expensive condos is functionally infinite. Not only are there thousands of yuppies looking for non-suburban homes, but more and more, people are buying such properties as investments and not living in them. In a perfect world, you're right, the market would fix this, but given the lack of such, we should be giving all we've got to enforcing/increasing affordability quotas. Or, barring that, we should have a much more holistic voucher/public housing program. 

 

In general, the issue with housing in our country is that it is one of the last 'basic' needs that isn't treated as a basic citizens' right. We have food stamps for nutrition, public schools for education, police/fire for safety, and medicaid for healthcare. But we do not have a way of guaranteeing our citizens a roof over their head every night. We continue to let people suffer the pains of homelessness and eviction. I am at a loss as to how one solves this (vouchers? public houses? affordability quotas?), but what I do know is that it must be solved. Bringing this bakc to transit, no one should sleep in the subway every night. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

This is the issue. I am also a fan of historic preservation, but in many cases it goes overboard. Vast swaths of Queens are being downzoned for fear that someone may try to build something that isn't a detached house there. What I'm saying is that we have to strike a balence between the two. If we save everything, we stop progress in its tracks. Sometimes for the good of the city, community charecter has to change. NIMBYs have to accept that sometimes that may be their neighborhood. 

 

I also find it hilarious that you think the issue with affordable housing is the existance of affordable housing. The market these days for expensive condos is functionally infinite. Not only are there thousands of yuppies looking for non-suburban homes, but more and more, people are buying such properties as investments and not living in them. In a perfect world, you're right, the market would fix this, but given the lack of such, we should be giving all we've got to enforcing/increasing affordability quotas. Or, barring that, we should have a much more holistic voucher/public housing program. 

 

In general, the issue with housing in our country is that it is one of the last 'basic' needs that isn't treated as a basic citizens' right. We have food stamps for nutrition, public schools for education, police/fire for safety, and medicaid for healthcare. But we do not have a way of guaranteeing our citizens a roof over their head every night. We continue to let people suffer the pains of homelessness and eviction. I am at a loss as to how one solves this (vouchers? public houses? affordability quotas?), but what I do know is that it must be solved. Bringing this bakc to transit, no one should sleep in the subway every night. 

I see nothing wrong with downsizing.  It's not as if there aren't areas that can't be rezoned that were once industrial.  We're seeing that happen anyway in the Bronx.  You can also look at areas like Long Island City, Williamsburg and parts of Bushwick.  Nothing historical there for the most part, and lots of empty factories.  Turn those into lofts and charge market prices, which continues to be done.  As for affordable housing, the current concept is laughable.  The people that are eligible for those "affordable housing" lotteries usually fork over a large chunk of their salary for rent each month when they could likely find a place in a better area at market prices, not to mention the shoddy construction.  They're like a updated version of housing projects.  No thank you.  I don't support affordable housing at all.  Either you can afford market rates or you move somewhere cheaper.  That's how the market corrects itself.  My building had several units renovated starting at over $2,000 each for small lofts with balconies.  They sat because they were overpriced, and as I predicted, all were rented for around $1,700.00.  That's how the market works.

 

While rezoning areas that make sense (like large swaths of the Bronx with nothing but burnt out buildings that should be demolished or vacant lots), you can expand the subway and turn these areas around.  Using privatization would certainly allow for more rapid expansion at lower costs, with work schedules that were more efficient at completing projects on-time and either at or below budget.

[Mtatransit]

I see nothing wrong with downsizing.  It's not as if there aren't areas that can't be rezoned that were once industrial.  We're seeing that happen anyway in the Bronx.  You can also look at areas like Long Island City, Williamsburg and parts of Bushwick.  Nothing historical there for the most part, and lots of empty factories.  Turn those into lofts and charge market prices, which continues to be done.  As for affordable housing, the current concept is laughable.  The people that are eligible for those "affordable housing" lotteries usually fork over a large chunk of their salary for rent each month when they could likely find a place in a better area at market prices, not to mention the shoddy construction.  They're like a updated version of housing projects.  No thank you.  I don't support affordable housing at all.  Either you can afford market rates or you move somewhere cheaper.  That's how the market corrects itself.  My building had several units renovated starting at over $2,000 each for small lofts with balconies.  They sat because they were overpriced, and as I predicted, all were rented for around $1,700.00.  That's how the market works.

 

While rezoning areas that make sense (like large swaths of the Bronx with nothing but burnt out buildings that should be demolished or vacant lots), you can expand the subway and turn these areas around.  Using privatization would certainly allow for more rapid expansion at lower costs, with work schedules that were more efficient at completing projects on-time and either at or below budget.

If you "let the market work" say goodbye to the middle class in NYC... Or aleast those near the subway. Just look at Long Island, either they're bad or super wealthy

[Via Garibaldi 8]

If you "let the market work" say goodbye to the middle class in NYC... Or aleast those near the subway. Just look at Long Island, either they're bad or super wealthy

The middle class has already been leaving in droves for years now.  They've been replaced by people with higher incomes that are still middle or upper middle class.  That's the way things work, and there's nothing wrong with that.  With that said, as people with higher incomes move in, they demand better services/amenities, which is a good thing.

[Mtatransit]

So basically screw the others, that will have to commute all the way from NJ? Or PA now?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

So basically screw the others, that will have to commute all the way from NJ? Or PA now?

That's already happening and has been now for years.  I know of plenty of people for example from NYC that moved to the Poconos or NJ.  There is no point in continuing to prop up people that can't afford to live here.  It simply doesn't work.  That's why our homeless population is out of control. The more you try to help, the more people will come that aren't even from here to benefit.  It's a never ending cycle and there isn't an endless flow of taxpayer money to pay for these housing programs and other social benefits.  Bloomberg tried to remedy it by purchasing people a one way ticket out of NYC (literally) to wherever they wanted to go and start afresh.  I think that should continue.

 

Privatization of the subway would also aid in curbing the homeless problem.  If the space isn't public, then you can move those people out of the system that are squatting.

[bobtehpanda]

You guys know that Queens is pretty big right? Downzoned historical areas (Sunnyside, Douglaston, etc.) can exist and you would still have plenty of candidates for subway extensions that would be heavily patronized.

 

The other thing is that subway extension doesn't even have to go to those neighborhoods to benefit them; most of the reason that the subway+bus commute areas is so slow is because all the buses are forced to go through the molasses that is Flushing and Jamaica. Extend the to, say, Broadway LIRR and all of a sudden Little Neck is a 20 minute bus wide away, whereas the buses from those areas to Flushing are scheduled for 45 minutes and make it if the traffic is alright.

 

The current situation in Queens would be analgous to all the subways in the Bronx terminating at Tremont Av, or all the subways in Brooklyn stopping at Church Avenue and Myrtle Av. We can all agree that those situations would be ridiculous, so what's the big difference?

[Mtatransit]

You guys know that Queens is pretty big right? Downzoned historical areas (Sunnyside, Douglaston, etc.) can exist and you would still have plenty of candidates for subway extensions that would be heavily patronized.

 

The other thing is that subway extension doesn't even have to go to those neighborhoods to benefit them; most of the reason that the subway+bus commute areas is so slow is because all the buses are forced to go through the molasses that is Flushing and Jamaica. Extend the to, say, Broadway LIRR and all of a sudden Little Neck is a 20 minute bus wide away, whereas the buses from those areas to Flushing are scheduled for 45 minutes and make it if the traffic is alright.

 

The current situation in Queens would be analgous to all the subways in the Bronx terminating at Tremont Av, or all the subways in Brooklyn stopping at Church Avenue and Myrtle Av. We can all agree that those situations would be ridiculous, so what's the big difference?

Everybody gave up hope that the Second Ave will ever be completed in four phases, we could all forget about any Queens Expansion. Maybe they will start when I'm 80

That's already happening and has been now for years. I know of plenty of people for example from NYC that moved to the Poconos or NJ. There is no point in continuing to prop up people that can't afford to live here. It simply doesn't work. That's why our homeless population is out of control. The more you try to help, the more people will come that aren't even from here to benefit. It's a never ending cycle and there isn't an endless flow of taxpayer money to pay for these housing programs and other social benefits. Bloomberg tried to remedy it by purchasing people a one way ticket out of NYC (literally) to wherever they wanted to go and start afresh. I think that should continue.

 

Privatization of the subway would also aid in curbing the homeless problem. If the space isn't public, then you can move those people out of the system that are squatting.

Getting homeless out is something MTA could do now, it just they haven't. These people need to get out of the subway...Anyways I still think the poor shouldn't be pushed out of NYC because of the "market". The poor needed the subway more,or do you advocate for them to take the bus, and then when they complain blame them for living "that far"

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Getting homeless out is something MTA could do now, it just they haven't. These people need to get out of the subway...Anyways I still think the poor shouldn't be pushed out of NYC because of the "market". The poor needed the subway more,or do you advocate for them to take the bus, and then when they complain blame them for living "that far"

They don't press the issue because the subway stations and commuter stations are considered to be public spaces.  That's why when the cops started trying to push out those performers at the SAS stations along the Upper East Side, they pushed back, reminding the cops of that fact. Once you've paid or get into the system, you can stay in it indefinitely technically, and the homeless people know that.  Same deal with places like Grand Central.  They get rid of them overnight by shutting down Grand Central for a few hours to clean and such. If they didn't do that, you'd see far more homeless people than you do now.  That's why they have those outreach folks for the homeless walking around there to try to get those folks out of there and into shelters, and Penn Station is even worse, since I'm not sure if it shuts down like Grand Central does.  There are a lot fewer entrances open 24/7 with Grand Central, thus forcing those people out to go elsewhere.

[bobtehpanda]

They don't press the issue because the subway stations and commuter stations are considered to be public spaces.  That's why when the cops started trying to push out those performers at the SAS stations along the Upper East Side, they pushed back, reminding the cops of that fact. Once you've paid or get into the system, you can stay in it indefinitely technically, and the homeless people know that.  Same deal with places like Grand Central.  They get rid of them overnight by shutting down Grand Central for a few hours to clean and such. If they didn't do that, you'd see far more homeless people than you do now.  That's why they have those outreach folks for the homeless walking around there to try to get those folks out of there and into shelters, and Penn Station is even worse, since I'm not sure if it shuts down like Grand Central does.  There are a lot fewer entrances open 24/7 with Grand Central, thus forcing those people out to go elsewhere.

 

IIRC, Penn is a 24/7 station, and the way it's setup between the three different owners it'd be hard to shut down the way Grand Central is shut down overnight.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

IIRC, Penn is a 24/7 station, and the way it's setup between the three different owners it'd be hard to shut down the way Grand Central is shut down overnight.

Well that's something else that would be changed if part of that station was privatized.  I mean even with Grand Central shutting down, the station is starting to turn into Penn Station.  The flooring is starting to crack throughout the terminal, and after spending $9.25 on a peak ticket, plus $2.75 for the shuttle bus yesterday, I got the pleasure of dodging a leaky ceiling as I made my way into the main concourse away from the track we were let out on.  There's nothing but patchwork going on everywhere, and this is the main problem with our subway and rail stations.  I think it's crazy when you look at what Apple is paying in rent to see the station in such conditions, and Penn Station now is like a third world country. If they don't start doing massive overhauls at Grand Central, we'll be in the same situation before you know it.  There seems to be water problems throughout the entire terminal because over the last few years, as I make my way to various tracks to get Metro-North, I see nothing but large garbage pails collecting leaking water, this from a station that is supposed to be grandiose compared to Penn Station.   Then of course there's the concourse that leads to the ... Stuck in a time warp with those hideous tiles (ironically enough, the same ones you find at Penn Station going to the subway).

[bobtehpanda]

Well that's something else that would be changed if part of that station was privatized.  I mean even with Grand Central shutting down, the station is starting to turn into Penn Station.  The flooring is starting to crack throughout the terminal, and after spending $9.25 on a peak ticket, plus $2.75 for the shuttle bus yesterday, I got the pleasure of dodging a leaky ceiling as I made my way into the main concourse away from the track we were let out on.  There's nothing but patchwork going on everywhere, and this is the main problem with our subway and rail stations.  I think it's crazy when you look at what Apple is paying in rent to see the station in such conditions, and Penn Station now is like a third world country. If they don't start doing massive overhauls at Grand Central, we'll be in the same situation before you know it.  There seems to be water problems throughout the entire terminal because over the last few years, as I make my way to various tracks to get Metro-North, I see nothing but large garbage pails collecting leaking water, this from a station that is supposed to be grandiose compared to Penn Station.   Then of course there's the concourse that leads to the ... Stuck in a time warp with those hideous tiles (ironically enough, the same ones you find at Penn Station going to the subway).

 

It's funny you say that, because Grand Central is actually privatized, so any upkeep issues would be on the private company and not MTA.

 

Penn Station is a shithole, but there's only so much you can do with the station with the three owners and Penn Plaza/MSG sitting right on top of it.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

It's funny you say that, because Grand Central is actually privatized, so any upkeep issues would be on the private company and not MTA.

 

Penn Station is a shithole, but there's only so much you can do with the station with the three owners and Penn Plaza/MSG sitting right on top of it.

They have done some things here and there (i.e. re-did the Metro-North ticket areas), and they are redoing the lower concourse (albeit at a snail's pace), but since the place has become overrun with bums I rarely go down there anymore unless I have a Metro-North train to catch and I go straight to the train (no stopping to pick up anything).  They're going to have to resolve that problem because the stench is so bad at times that I can't see how anyone would want to buy any sort of food there. I used to get ice cream from a place that I wouldn't go near now. There's a homeless guy that sets up shot every morning right by there and stinks to high heavens.  There's a few other good places like Magnolia that I haven't been to in quite a while.  Would rather go to the one inside of Bloomingdale's instead.

[Around the Horn]

Well that's something else that would be changed if part of that station was privatized. 

 

Penn will always be 24/7 because of the 24/7 Amtrak and LIRR trains.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Penn will always be 24/7 because of the 24/7 Amtrak and LIRR trains.

I suppose, but never say never.  Wouldn't be surprised if there were changes down the line, especially with the way things are going with Amtrak.

[Italianstallion]

The RATP is private. They operate the Metro, Trams, Buses, and lines A and B of the RER. The STIF is the bridge between public and private that handles the allocation of funds needed to make improvements and expand.

 

Sent from my N9560 using Tapatalk

 

According to Wikipedia, "The RATP Group (French: Groupe RATP), also known as the Régie Autonome des Transports Parisiens (English: Autonomous Operator of Parisian Transports) is a state-owned public transport operator headquartered in Paris, France."

[Italianstallion]

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

 

Apparently not. Per Wikipedia, "The RATP Group (French: Groupe RATP), also known as the Régie Autonome des Transports Parisiens (English: Autonomous Operator of Parisian Transports) is a state-owned public transport operator headquartered in Paris, France."

 

​So your example of privatization operating wonderfully (Paris) is actually an example of government-owned transit operating wonderfully. LOL.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Apparently not. Per Wikipedia, "The RATP Group (French: Groupe RATP), also known as the Régie Autonome des Transports Parisiens (English: Autonomous Operator of Parisian Transports) is a state-owned public transport operator headquartered in Paris, France."

​So your example of privatization operating wonderfully (Paris) is actually an example of government-owned transit operating wonderfully. LOL.

Wikipedia is the LAST place to get information from. lol In any event, privitazation certainly can work if done correctly.

[Mtatransit]

Wikipedia is the LAST place to get information from. lol In any event, privitazation certainly can work if done correctly.

Not doubting if profit is involved Private company will certainly provide a better job(or aleast cleaner) and better customer service. It's just that the government have to provide a significant infrastructure improvement first. Having antiquated signals and subpar tracks is not gonna attract any private operator

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Not doubting if profit is involved Private company will certainly provide a better job(or aleast cleaner) and better customer service. It's just that the government have to provide a significant infrastructure improvement first. Having antiquated signals and subpar tracks is not gonna attract any private operator

Yeah but that's what the  part of the system that would continue to run.  I think a private-public partnership would work best.

[RR503]

Wikipedia is the LAST place to get information from. lol In any event, privitazation certainly can work if done correctly.

See section 5.

https://www.ratp.fr/groupe-ratp/presentation-du-groupe/lessentiel-sur-notre-groupe#5-attached-to-anchorprint/

Wiki is good for info that has a community around it. You'll find it's a lot harder than you'd think to spam it...