Richard responded in various ways to my modest proposal. Some highlights:
>No, what you'd find is that a _very_ few corridor services would be
>"cherry-picked" by private operators. Everything else -- the stuff
>which makes cities liveable, the stuff which makes public
>transportation _systems_ viable -- would be abandoned.
This is the same thing the Postal Service said when FedEx came along.
Aren't you glad that they didn't get their way?
Seriously, though, I can think of a lot of routes that would be better
served by someone else. (Let's talk about SF only for the moment, to
keep it simple.) The commute to downtown by riders not lucky enough to
live on an express route would be better if there were an express route -
which I bet SuperShuttle or equivalent could do with a lower per-rider
subsidy than Muni gets. (I'd at least be very interested in finding out,
as I am one such rider.)
Note that I never said that Muni should be broken up, or replaced, by
such NEW services. Think of my example again - the Postal Service ships
more than they did before FedEx took off, and they're more profitable
than they've been in ages. AT&T has record traffic days MONTHLY - with
the lowest market share it's ever had. Competition is GOOD for the
incumbent.
"Cherry-picking" is an old reliable used by monopolies defending
themselves. My opinion is that it is a herring as red as the cherries,
and not nearly as tasty.
>>That's it. No ... [political] pressure.
>And no service.
No, that's where you miss my point. One can without too much difficulty
structure a system that ENCOURAGES operators to offer NEW service because
it is PROFITABLE to do so, either directly or via a fair subsidy. Just
because others haven't doesn't mean we can't. For example, I would love
a system that paid any qualified operator $2 for my boarding on his or
her public transit vehicle. Maybe I would ride Muni, maybe I wouldn't.
MY choice - and the city still wins because I'm not using expensive
roads, air, and parking spaces.
>Just place a wise and all-knowing CEO in the maximum-leader
>role and away you go.
No, put the CONSUMERS in control, where WE should be - not the
politicians who already have personal limo service.
>There's nothing stopping you from starting this service. There's
>clearly an unmet need and a service to be provided. Go out and line
>up the venture capital!
Well, to a certain extent you're right. I would love it if someone did
this - in fact, someone already has for the Caltrain to Market St shuttle
and can barely stay afloat due to the cost of liability insurance. I
have no idea what red tape the city throws in front of such a company,
but I would guess that it is out of all proportion to the necessity
thereof. (Think of our ridiculous taxi rules as an example.)
Margo St James, herself no Gingrich clone, has taken an interest in this
for Potrero Hill, her neighborhood. One of these days I will see what
her assessment of the costs would be.
>Seriously, I'm interested in how Muni is to be "rescued" by what you
>advocate. Would destroying the notion of a transportation _system_
>improve services to users?
Destroying the system would be a bad idea. Nobody is advocating this! I
certainly am not. Encouraging competition would only HELP the system -
both by giving consumers more and better choices (and if many other
industries are any guide, increasing total usage as a result) and giving
Muni an incentive to get its act together.
Again, a good model is Federal Express. How can we encourage
higher-quality alternatives to Muni, since Muni can't provide service at
the quality we want?
Andrew
P.S. Donald wrote:
>I would be perfectly happy if we
>simply removed all subsidies from all transportation, and let the market
>decide[.]
Amen!
Just don't forget that gasoline taxes pay for a big piece of roads &
highways - not the whole thing, but a big piece. My feeling has been for
a long time that these gas taxes should reflect the total cost of the
system - including local road maintenance, loss of property taxes from
space used as highway that could be used for commercial or residential
property, etc. I would be very surprised if, under such a regime, the US
city didn't become much denser and more livable - rather the way SF is.
But I'm not holding my breath.