DCist: Metro's Chartered Shuttle Buses Bite the Dust

Reid

Fri, 23 May 2008 17:01:43 -0500

"Actually the "publicatization" of mass transit began earlier than that perhaps 40 years prior to that" True. But the Conrail takeover of all the failing passenger railroads was right around the time of the FTA act. That was more what I was thinking about. But I agree that there was an anti-union sentiment behind a lot of the takeovers. I sometimes wonder if the DC Transit union hadn't shut down the streetcars like they did, whether they'd have lasted longer. I suspect they would've lasted a bit longer, but they'd still be gone. Particularly with the building of Metro.

DC1974

Fri, 23 May 2008 16:20:34 -0500

@reid Actually the "publicatization" of mass transit began earlier than that perhaps 40 years prior to that, and was initially away to try to circumnavigate transit unions that were regularly shutting down transit systems in in the 1920s. Civil employees didn't have the same level of unionization. So of course now conservatives are talking about privatizing transit systems to again beat unions where they have power. Not realizing, of course, that the unions will follow eventually. But I suppose in the meantime, their corporate friends can make a bundle and the unions will be momentarily weakened.

14thandYou

Fri, 23 May 2008 15:33:54 -0500

"Those are in little danger of being revoked. At least in theory." I'd say ANYTHING involving public transportation is in danger of being revoked under this administration.

voteprime

Fri, 23 May 2008 15:10:26 -0500

@demonfafa Aah! Yes, that makes sense. I guess I didn't quite understand the specification here. I figured those routes weren't a concern since they weren't mentioned anywhere in the article, but I didn't understand why. Thanks.

demonfafa

Fri, 23 May 2008 14:53:45 -0500

@ voteprime: Those are Express Buses which are covered under Metro routes. They're not charter buses to entertainment venues. Those are in little danger of being revoked. At least in theory.

Reid

Fri, 23 May 2008 14:52:18 -0500

"How much you want to bet Dan Snyder and the Redskins lobbied for this rule?" There was nothing preventing Snyder from hiring a private charter service before this rule. This is more about protecting the charter companies from having to compete witha tax payer subsidized entity. It's all explained on the first page of the rule release. Not that I necessarily agree with the logic, but I think the thrust is more "should tax payer dollars be spent providing a service that private companies are still ready and willing to provide?" I think it makes more sense when you consider it in the context of the publicification of mass transit in the late-60s and early 70s (in other words, while the government took over all the failing bus and rail lines, it shouldn't use its largess to push out those business that weren't struggling).

Andrew Wiseman

Fri, 23 May 2008 14:50:05 -0500

And continuing the argument, why can't private companies do all mass transit? I hope that doesn't happen, but it seems like this is the logic being used.

voteprime

Fri, 23 May 2008 14:42:44 -0500

Why don't Metro buses to BWI and Dulles fall into this category? Not that I want those buses to stop, but it certainly is a situation where a private company could run a line in and out of the airports (in fact, I think there is one out of Dulles (Washington Deluxe, or something like that...is that my answer?).

badtzmaru

Fri, 23 May 2008 14:38:05 -0500

How much you want to bet Dan Snyder and the Redskins lobbied for this rule?

sumergocognito

Fri, 23 May 2008 14:21:10 -0500

Broadly speaking then, public transit is "bad" (according to conservatives) because it can't turn a profit, but it's also not supposed to compete with private companies in areas where it might actually be able to generate revenue. Do I detect some sort of hypocrisy here?