Public vs Private

Over at the Allegheny Conference, The Big "Z" (Ken Zapinski) admits the importance of public transportation to the vitality of a vibrant urban core. So it seems our differences lie not in providing the necessary service but in who is better in providing it, the public or private sector?

Let's examine the differences. The private sector exists to make a profit that's as American as apple pie, however as stated in it's corporate charter a profit must be first and foremost on the minds of it's directors, and how we go about making that profit is secondary to showing a profit in other words the ends justify the means.

Not exactly what the citizenry wants when it comes to a necessary service. The public sector on the other hand exists to provide a service for all it's citizens as economically feasible as possible and is held accountable thru the ballot box and not by it's shareholders.

We both agree that Public transportation can't exist without taxpayer subsidies which is why the Port Authority was formed in the first place, and no knowledgeable person disagrees with that fact. So it seems our differences would lie in cost containment. Most uninformed people at first glance would agree with The Big "Z" that the private sector would win this discussion but is this true?

The first example I'll cite would be the city of Pittsburgh's experimenting with contracting out of waste services in the south hills of the city. After extensive bidding on the contract and extensive studies being done it was found that the Public Sector was more efficient in providing the service and now the suburbs are contracting out with the city to provide waste hauling at less cost.

Arguments against the Public Sector in providing these services lie in the argument of soft budget constraints that the Public Employee's Unions will drink at an endless trough. To say that this is true you are also saying that an American Democracy is also a failure since we've shown the ownership of said services is the voting public, but what is also missing from this argument is that if the private sector takes over necessary services they also have soft budget constraints and will drink from the so called trough that they accuse Public Employees of with a vast difference of instead of being responsible to the taxpayers they serve, their loyalties lie to their shareholders who by law they must exist to show a profit thru what ever means are necessary. In the end it comes down to a profit motive for the private hauler whereas for the Public Sector it's all about providing the service to it's electorate that motivates it.

For the Private Sector to operate 1 of 2 things must happen a raising of subsidies to support it's existence or the obliteration of it's services, the public be dammed. The fact that their is absolutely no risk for the Private Sector to take over necessary services should raise a huge flag to all interested parties. The biggest risk to a private transportation provider is the network distribution (busways,buses,insurance,fuel costs,emergency services,rail lines) all the things that the public has already bought and will continue to pay for. State owned enterprises are shown to be superior wherever a natural monopoly exists this refers to the situation where technological conditions dictate that having only one supplier is the most efficient way to serve the market place. Electricity,water, gas,public transit,land phones,emergency services, are examples of natural monopolies. In these industries the main cost of the services as fore mentioned are the distribution network and therefore the unit costs of provision go down if the number of customers that uses the network increases.

In contrast having multiple suppliers each with it's own distribution network as Pre-Port Authority 1964 increases the costs to it's public. Historically in every large city there were competing transit companies but these were then consolidated into large monopolies for efficiencies sake. When a private company owns a monopoly it can charge what ever it wishes and serve wherever it wishes to the dismay of our most vulnerable citizens who reside in our county and allow us to plunge deeper into what seems to be the goal of certain leaders, 3rd world status.

Don't be fooled by the arguments that we're hearing out there, there is an all out assault by the corporations to take our tax money and use it for their benefits under the guise of Public-Private Partnerships. When ever one goes into business there is a certain amount of risk involved but the reason private companies love these arrangements is that the risk is not theirs but ours thru our taxes. Great deal if you're in on it bad deal if you're the one who funds it which one are you?