>I've seen a number of opinions expressed in a variety of forums
>on the privatisation of MUNI (or parts of MUNI) -- coupled with claims
>that things would improve if it was not an monopoly.
>
>Does RM have a position on this?
>
>Thanks....
>
>MARK.
RM doesn't have an "official" position on privatization per se. As you
might imagine, there is a wide diversity of opinion on the subject, from
those opposed to it in any form to those who think the city should get
out of the transit business entirely.
My personal opinion, not RM position, is:
- Contracting out is a very important tool for achieving cost and time
savings. In particular, IF the contract is designed properly and IF the
right contractor is chosen, you can get contractors to provide and
enforce strict service level agreements (e.g. $1000 penalty per missed
run). However, if the contract is poorly designed (e.g. Alcatel), you
will get poor service.
- Competition is critical. Hong Kong, for example, has at least THREE
privately operated, highly efficient, competing transit companies. SF
used to, before Muni bought them all out. The city could, but doesn't,
take steps to encourage new entrants into the market (e.g. proactively
issue jitney licenses) without subsidies. Cleveland has a program called
"Cleveland Competes" in which city departments have to compete with
private contractors to provide services; service quality and productivity
are both way up.
- Unions traditionally don't like contracting-out and competition because
it reduces their power. In this case unions are profoundly
anti-consumer. (They often take other, pro-consumer positions elsewhere
- e.g. the Ambassador program). The recent organization by certain taxi
drivers to oppose more taxi licenses is a good example of this. Too bad:
we need quality service more than we need powerful unions. But it makes
it politically difficult in SF, and impossible under Willie, to make any
change in this direction.
- San Francisco has a history of cozy relations with contractors which
bodes ill for a large contracting-out project. (Golden Gate Disposal is
a great example: one provider for the whole city, without competitive
bidding, in a world where lots of garbage haulers compete for city and
private contractors.) Just turning Muni into a contractor, or hiring a
single company to run the whole thing, gets us this. Bad idea.
- Every now and then someone runs a poll that suggests "privatizing Muni"
(in some form) would get lots of support from San Franciscans today.
SF's political establishment would certainly fight any such proposal. I
tend to think such a fight would significantly distract the activist
community, and Muni, from important efforts aimed at establishing
accountability in the current system. But incremental changes (e.g.
pro-competitive policies) would be an easier sell, would probably not
"hurt Muni," and would increase total transit use.
Does anyone on the list have experience using, or working for, private
transit? Contracted-out or independent? How is the service quality vs.
Muni and other public services like BART, NYC Transit, Washington Metro,
etc? Let us know.
Andrew