From: jclander@texas.mitre.org (Julian C. Lander)
Newsgroups: ne.general
Subject: Re: Drinking and the MBTA was Re: Sunday Liquor Sales
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:53:34 GMT
Reply-To: jclander@texas.mitre.org (Julian C. Lander)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va

In article <1992Dec17.153135.8027@dunsel.harvard.edu>, borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
|> In article <BZS.92Dec15212827@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
|> >
|> >From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
|> >>  The MBTA ought to stay open until an hour after closing time. Hell,
|> >>it ought to run all night, like trains in bigger cities do.
|> >
|> >You mean like trains in REAL cities, heh heh.
|> >
|> >It's funny, saying "they oughta run all night" sounds like this HUGE
|> >proposition, a major expansion in service.
|> 
|> What this city should do is allow private bus lines to run at night, and in
|> my opinion, in the daytime as well.  Why should the MBTA have a monopoly on
|> mass transit?
|> 

The monopoly exists essentially to save taxpayer money.  I know this sounds
crazy, but let me explain.  (And there are a couple of points in the 
argument with which it is possible to disagree.)

First, you have to accept the proposition that the current extent of 
public transportation and the current fares are appropriate for the
area and the population.  Right now, the MBTA loses vast amounts of
money, and the difference is made up by the cities and towns in the 
MBTA district (and possibly by the state--I don't remember whether
there is direct state funding).

Now, you may assert that the MBTA's losses are through mismanagement, and
that the same service level could be provided at the same fares by a 
private company without loss.  I can't say that's not true, and, if it
is, there may be a reason to make the MBTA private.  But I suspect it's
not true.  There is certainly waste.  At one time, there was much discussion
of the conditions of contracts with the unions. Some people felt that 
they were too generous.  But I think that this problem is much smaller
than enough to cover the entire operating shortfall.

This means that, if you follow my argument thus far, no private company
can run a transportation system that matches the MBTA in service for the same
fares and still make a profit.  So the company has two choices: either
reduce service or raise fares.  You can decide that these are acceptable, 
but they can just as well be applied to the MBTA.

Now there are some services that a private company could run with a 
profit.  For example, the #1 (Harvard-Dudley [or has it changed?]) 
bus, which is almost always crowded.  I suspect that this single line
makes a profit. 

However, if a private company took over a profit-making line, the MBTA
deficit would be larger, and the taxpayers would have more to cover.
This is called cream-skimming.  In fact, the U.S. Postal Service is
complaining about it: easy packages are being shipped more and more
by private companies, and the USPS gets only those packages that are
difficult and expensive to move.

(The flaw in my argument has to do with the performance of a private
company vs. the MBTA.  But I'm assuming, and I think it likely, that
there is little difference.  I don't think a private company would
have cheaper costs to that extent.)

Julian C. Lander
jclander@mitre.org
Newsgroups: ne.general