Comments on: Privatization http://www.masstransitmag.com/interactive/2008/03/21/privatization/ Mass Transit's editor, Fred Jandt, speaks weekly on critical issues facing the public transportation industry. Tue, 13 May 2008 12:05:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Michael Schabas http://www.masstransitmag.com/interactive/2008/03/21/privatization/#comment-3102 Michael Schabas Sat, 22 Mar 2008 11:50:07 +0000 http://www.masstransitmag.com/interactive/2008/03/21/privatization/#comment-3102 Mass Transit readers deserve a more substantial discussion of privatisation, which can take make forms. Mass Transit systems tend to be natural monopolies, so some form of government regulation is usually required if the operator - whether public or private - is not to abuse its position at the expense of customers. Privatisation, if done well, exposes the differing interests of producers and consumers. It also frees mass transit of the short term games of politicians. Many US bus systems are already operated by private companies, often at substantially less subsidy than if operated directly within government. In the UK, privatisation of the rail system has brought a 50% increase in passenger numbers, while key fares have been kept low both by regulation and market forces. Most intercity and London commuter routes no longer need subsidy. While the North American market is in some wyas less conducive to pulic transit, the dead hand of government control has certainly limited innovation while allowing costs to rise - with the result that consumers get a poorer service, with a higher bill to the taxpayer. Mass Transit readers deserve a more substantial discussion of privatisation, which can take make forms. Mass Transit systems tend to be natural monopolies, so some form of government regulation is usually required if the operator - whether public or private - is not to abuse its position at the expense of customers. Privatisation, if done well, exposes the differing interests of producers and consumers. It also frees mass transit of the short term games of politicians. Many US bus systems are already operated by private companies, often at substantially less subsidy than if operated directly within government. In the UK, privatisation of the rail system has brought a 50% increase in passenger numbers, while key fares have been kept low both by regulation and market forces. Most intercity and London commuter routes no longer need subsidy. While the North American market is in some wyas less conducive to pulic transit, the dead hand of government control has certainly limited innovation while allowing costs to rise - with the result that consumers get a poorer service, with a higher bill to the taxpayer.

]]> By: Rob Schupp http://www.masstransitmag.com/interactive/2008/03/21/privatization/#comment-3097 Rob Schupp Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:06:12 +0000 http://www.masstransitmag.com/interactive/2008/03/21/privatization/#comment-3097 Regarding the article on Disney: Let's see.... Disney charges $50 per person to get in the park. Once there, you spend $3 for a coke, $3 for popcorn, $10 for a burger, markups of hundreds of percent on merchandise, and hundreds of dollars a night on hotel rooms. And then all Disney does is take EVERYBODY from the same Point A to the same Point B. Comparing that to the realities of real public transportation belongs purely in Fantasyland. Regarding the article on Disney:

Let’s see…. Disney charges $50 per person to get in the park. Once there, you spend $3 for a coke, $3 for popcorn, $10 for a burger, markups of hundreds of percent on merchandise, and hundreds of dollars a night on hotel rooms. And then all Disney does is take EVERYBODY from the same Point A to the same Point B. Comparing that to the realities of real public transportation belongs purely in Fantasyland.

]]>