>Andrew,
>
> I think your theory that competition in public transit can lead to better
>service has to overcome a great burden of history against it.
Well...
I would disagree. Early in this century many cities, including SF, had
several competing streetcar lines, and consumers had a choice. In New
York, two private companies (IRT and BRT, which became BMT) built subway
lines in competition with each other. Then the city got into the act
with the INDependent subway, leading to the highest density of transit
service anywhere in the US. Eventually the other two lines went bankrupt
for various reasons (the city kept the fare below cost, for one thing;
also, the car was beginning to take passengers away) and the city bought
them up. This led to greater convenience (one city, one fare) but has
never been profitable, while the IRT and BRT had been for many years.
David can give us a better education on SF's history, but for a great
while there were three railways (Market, California, and Municipal) that
competed aggressivly for the consumer's dollar.
Monopoly private operators, on the other hand, haven't been so nice. O.
Roy Chalk's DC Transit, for example, spent big bucks replacing all its
streetcars with buses and then promptly went bankrupt (I think) forcing a
buyout by Metro. And we all know the sad story of the Pacific Electric
in Los Angeles.
> Think about the history of public transit in this country in the 20th
>century. I can't think of any situation where the ability of a private (or
>sometimes public) provider to skim high value routes or passengers has not
>been a major feature of contraction in service.
Whether this is a good or bad thing depends entirely on your point of
view. After all, we don't complain about car makers making high value
car models, or coffee producers making expensive coffee - so long as we
have a choice between makers.
It does raise an important public policy question, though. Does it make
sense to ensure broad streetcar and bus _coverage_ to the city so
everyone can use the system? As a people San Franciscans have
consistently chosen to do this, via the Municipal Railway, and I doubt
very much that SF will suddenly change its mind. Is total reliance on
Muni the best way to do this? That's an entirely different question.
> It is worth remembering that competition is a destructive, not a
>constructive force. (Really, think about it.)
I can't disagree with you more. In the private sector competition is
what drives innovation. Do you think Intel makes faster chips out of the
goodness of Andy Grove's heart? Do you think Shuttle by United exists
because Greenwald thought West Coast fliers should pay less, just because
we are nice people? If it weren't for AMD, Motorola, and Southwest, we'd
all be paying through the nose and told we should like it (as we are in
the case of desktop operating systems and office suites, monopolized by
Microsoft).
>I would suggest that it is a force to be used carefully. Yes
>it could be used to shake out some of the rigidities of SF's public
>transportation.
And that's exactly what I'm arguing we need to do. Completely separate
from our (completely necessary) Muni reform initiatives, it would be very
helpful to design a policy that encourages healthy competition by
entrepreneurs, perhaps via subsidy and perhaps not. My contention is
that the latter will help Muni at least as much, if not more, than
bureaucratic chair reshuffling.
Happy New Year,
Andrew