Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertarian
|
I read the article. I live in New York- and I understand CBTC (communications based train control), which MARTA implemented about 10 years ago, and MTA has only implemented on their '7' line. The article's main gripe is that the New York subway is still using the old 'fixed block' systems, which many transit agencies still use, but is much less efficient than the new CBTC technology.
The New York subways run 24x7 and nearly all the lines (except for the 7) are intermingled- it is technically very difficult to upgrade all the lines signalling to CBTC because the trains and tracks have to be upgraded at the same time. There are 360 stations and 850 miles of track.
These people don't understand the complexities and realities of running the MTA. It is true, the MTA has one of the highest farebox recovery ratios in the nation (where more of their income comes from farebox income than government subsidies), however, that tells me in New York the government (city and state) are not funding the subway at levels seen for other subway systems, on a per capita basis. Some would say that the MTA is more efficient because it relies more on ticket income that government subsidy- others may say that the under-investment the article talks about is because there is not enough subsidy from the goverment.
The article was written by a think tank out of Alabama, so I further question their understanding of something like the New York subway or the money or costs of doing business in New York city. The New York subway is vital to the economy of New York, and there is no other service that even comes close to the efficiency of getting around the city, especially at rush hour. They don't have to 'compete' with cars and buses- driving in New York is a complete disaster, and the subways run relatively smoothly by comparison.
MARTA was successful at privatizing some of their operations, as recommended by the KPMG study from 2012 or so. Some were unsuccessful due to union pushback, the biggest being their paratransit service. I don't believe the MTA has privatized any of their operations, which may help with functions such as backoffice or janitorial. The unions are strong there so I don't see it happening. I think this is a good idea.
The idea that the whole transit agencies, either in New York or Atlanta, could be privatized, is a crazy thought in my mind, however. These are non-profitable subsidized monopolies.
While the city has saved money by moving to Park Atlanta, we have seen the negative consequences to privatization of this service. While 'service' has gone up, the civic costs have skyrocketed (e.g. penalties if you park wrong), however, some might argue that enforcement has gotten a lot better. While I would not argue Atlanta move back to publicly running the parking enforcement, I don't think privatizing government agencies is a cure all for what is essentially funding deficits.
Prev
Linear Mode
