More greedy execs get raises, cut customer service

[Anti-Bunny]

http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/columns/BarbaraHollingsworth/Metro_Execs_Threaten_Service_Cuts_Then_Hike_Their_ Own_Pay_123008.html

Metro’s Approved Fiscal 2009 Annual Budget includes large pay hikes for salaried management employees, as well as hourly workers such as bus drivers, rail operators and maintenance workers. But the numbers take on added significance when compared to previous years.

For example, in the section entitled “Multi-Year Operating Cost Comparison,” we see that salaries for Metro managers in the Bus Services section have more than doubled since 2006. Next year, Metro’s top bus executives expect to be paid twice what they made just three years ago, and this when almost every economic indicator is steadily heading south.....

In 2007, an exclusive Examiner series highlighted the excessive overtime payments that pushed more than a hundred bus and rail operators into six-figure territory – almost double the median income of the Washington, D.C. area.....

Meanwhile, Metro’s “customers” have to contend with broken escalators, defective subway cars, increasing crime and decreasing system reliability even as they continue to pay the higher fares and parking fees imposed on them last year when most Metro employees were getting yet another raise.

Another example of a company that should be bankrupt..

[Athryn]

No, I would prefer that the trains still run, kthx.

[Not One Of Us]

No, I would prefer that the trains still run, kthx.

And on time, at that.

[Anti-Bunny]

No, I would prefer that the trains still run, kthx.

Then lease the tracks, busses and stations out to a company that doesn't suck.

[Hawkeye Fierce]

Then lease the tracks, busses and stations out to a company that doesn't suck.You know, I'm perfectly ok with the general proposition that the government doesn't always run things well. The idea that private enterprise is always a better choice is where you lose me. I could have stood to have a bit more government in the financial sector the past few years, for example.

Many countries have perfectly decent public transportation operated by the government. It can be done.

[Anti-Bunny]

You know, I'm perfectly ok with the general proposition that the government doesn't always run things well. The idea that private enterprise is always a better choice is where you lose me.

When did I say that private enterprise is ALWAYS better? I suggested it would be better, in this case.

Many countries have perfectly decent public transportation operated by the government. It can be done.

Again, something I didn't dispute.

[Hawkeye Fierce]

So why is your only option to turn it over to private enterprise? Why not, you know, fix it, instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

FWIW, I regard the issue of executives looting their organizations for personal profit a general cultural issue in America, not one of government vs. private enterprise.

[Anti-Bunny]

So why is your only option to turn it over to private enterprise? Why not, you know, fix it, instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Because DC local government is broken on so many levels that I don't think they are capable of it.

[Hawkeye Fierce]

Because DC local government is broken on so many levels that I don't think they are capable of it.Yes, surely this is the most difficult problem this country has ever faced. How ever will we contend with it.

And again, why are you so sure private enterprise would actually be any better?

[Lum]

Wow, if someone thinks DC Metro service is bad, they should try other cities sometime.

[Anti-Bunny]

Yes, surely this is the most difficult problem this country has ever faced. How ever will we contend with it.

Yes, Hawkeye. It's the most difficult issue our nation has ever faced.

EVER, PEOPLE!

And again, why are you so sure private enterprise would actually be any better?

I'm not, but I think contracting it out to a non-profit is a good place to start.

[Hawkeye Fierce]

Yes, Hawkeye. It's the most difficult issue our nation has ever faced.You're the one who declared it an insoluble problem for the government. Don't get tetchy when I throw your own hyperbole back in your face.

I'm not, but I think contracting it out to a non-profit is a good place to start.Why? What are your reasons for thinking they'd do any better a job?

[Anti-Bunny]

You're the one who declared it an insoluble problem for the government. Don't get tetchy when I throw your own hyperbole back in your face.

This is correct, but there are plenty of problems that aren't going to be solved in our lifetime. Now, who's tetchy?

Why? What are your reasons for thinking they'd do any better a job?

Privatized transit tends to reduce costs while increasing customer satisfaction, I think that's enough.

This comes up a lot with privatized interstates and 'toll express lanes', and recently Washington’s HOT lanes which are completely privately owned and is running fine. The hurdle with privatizing them is usually with unions and the entrenched retirement systems.

[Jason McCullough]

Then lease the tracks, busses and stations out to a company that doesn't suck.

The problem here is that DC government is hilariously corrupt. You aren't going to solve that by outsourcing it - they'll outsource the service to whoever "donates" the most money, and it'll probably end up costing the taxpayers even more.

[Damien Falgoust]

You're the one who declared it an insoluble problem for the government. Actually, he said it was an insoluble problem for local D.C. government, which given their hilarious track record of incompetence and corruption in a variety of fields is not a crazy statement to make. The problem, as Jason points out, is that the same idjits would be in charge of buying private sector services.

[Hawkeye Fierce]

This is correct, but there are plenty of problems that aren't going to be solved in our lifetime. Now, who's tetchy?Mmm, goalpost moving. Well, by all means, if the solution is long-term, fuck it. America is strictly short-term thinking only.

Privatized transit tends to reduce costs while increasing customer satisfaction, I think that's enough.Can you back that up? I could just as easily respond by pointing out the number of publicly run transit systems worldwide that run just fine. I honestly am not aware of any privately run subways/metros.

This comes up a lot with privatized interstates and 'toll express lanes', and recently Washington’s HOT lanes which are completely privately owned and is running fine. The hurdle with privatizing them is usually with unions and the entrenched retirement systems.There's a big difference between a privatized alternative or adjunct to a public transit system, and one which is wholly privatized. Can you provide an example of the latter?

It just boggles my mind that your solution to this specific problem of executive enrichment at the cost of the company's fundamentals is to privatize. Private industry isn't exactly free of that particular problem. At least with government there's the hope of transparency and accountability.

Actually, he said it was an insoluble problem for local D.C. government, which given their hilarious track record of incompetence and corruption in a variety of fields is not a crazy statement to make. The problem, as Jason points out, is that the same idjits would be in charge of buying private sector services.That's fine. And, if that's the case, privatizing the metro is still the wrong thing to do. Fix the government, first.

[Anders Hallin]

Can you back that up? I could just as easily respond by pointing out the number of publicly run transit systems worldwide that run just fine. I honestly am not aware of any privately run subways/metros.
Wholly run by companies? I don't think there are any, since transit systems are such an essential part of cities' infrastructures.
There are a whole lot run by companies on contracts for specific time periods, though.

[red guy]

Privatized transit tends to reduce costs while increasing customer satisfaction, I think that's enough.
No, privatized transit tends to maximize shareholder profit at the expense of long-term maintenance and ticket prices, since there is no real, equivalent competition. If our government hadn't kept strict monitoring privileges when semi-privatizing the train system, and yanked back the reins when the service was steeply deteriorating in 2002-04, it would have broken down.

For true horror stories about privatized transit, check the UK papers from the first part of this decade.

[Anti-Bunny]

Mmm, goalpost moving. Well, by all means, if the solution is long-term, fuck it. America is strictly short-term thinking only.

Say what? Hawkeye, you can't fix DC politics starting with an DC Metro escalator that works.

And if you want to go to DC and fix the government, hey, cool. But the escalator is still broken while you're trying.

Can you back that up? I could just as easily respond by pointing out the number of publicly run transit systems worldwide that run just fine. I honestly am not aware of any privately run subways/metros.

Neither am I but I know of several examples of metros/subways that used to be private that were bought out by local government (Long Island Rail Road and other lines that were bought up by MTA).

It just boggles my mind that your solution to this specific problem of executive enrichment at the cost of the company's fundamentals is to privatize. Private industry isn't exactly free of that particular problem. At least with government there's the hope of transparency and accountability.


And it boggles my mind that you're so dead-set against any possible removal of systems from a repeatedly-proven-retarded government.

And being government run ensures transparency and accountability? What the fuck? Do you think I would suggest handing it over to anything but a regulated entity? Do you have any idea the kind of bullshit even normal greedy for-profit corporations have to go through thanks to S&O?

No, privatized transit tends to maximize shareholder profit at the expense of long-term maintenance and ticket prices, since there is no real, equivalent competition.

Unless it's a non-profit org running it.

[Gabe Lewis]

I had a friend who lived in Manchester UK and said that there were 3 different bus companies (including a public one) that all worked the same area. Basically the public bus was the cheapest and came ever 15 minutes or so. Then the privately own bus company would come every 10 minutes or so but be more expensive (like a pound).

The other private bus company would come every 5 minutes and cost even more to ride.

So yeah, that's all total hearsay as I'm to lazy to look any of this up. For what it's worth my friend liked the system, but also said it made him feel really poor when he could not afford to ride the nicey nice bus when he really needed to save the time.

[Jason McCullough]

Anti, I'm still not following - why would you expect the regulatory board-covered new private bus service to be any less corrupt?

[Mark Asher]

In St. Louis our government run mass transit system, Bi-State, is cutting back. Some service is being discontinued and a lot of jobs are being axed. I haven't heard of any executive bonuses being handed out.

[Hawkeye Fierce]

And it boggles my mind that you're so dead-set against any possible removal of systems from a repeatedly-proven-retarded government.I'm not, actually. I'm in favor of whatever the best solution for a problem is. But I want to see some evidence that privatization would actually improve things.

If you're so confident that the new management could be competently regulated, why can't we simply regulate the level of compensation in the current structure?

[Aleck]

Unless it's a non-profit org running it.

Errr... It *is* a nonprofit running it.

WMATA is a nonprofit corporation, governed by a board of directors, etc. It's associated with the governments in the region (DC, VA, MD), but it's not technically part of the government. What it does have in common with government is that it's unionized, which is why there are high wages.

Metro's big problem is that they've deferred maintenance due to a failure of local and federal funding sources to support it. As a result, things are breaking down (particularly the escalators). That said, Metro rail is the *most* financially responsible public transportation system in the country -- according to an interview I heard the other day, Metro rail recovers 80% of its costs through the sale of farecards, which is significantly higher than any other rail (or bus) system in the country.

[Dirt]

Seriously. If you're against this, you must be at worst a Communist, at best a Socialist.

[Anti-Bunny]

Errr... It *is* a nonprofit running it.


Not really, it's a government agency authorized by Congress.

[Aleck]

Not really, it's a government agency authorized by Congress.

It's neither a federal agency, nor a state agency. It was created by the states of MD, and VA, along with DC, acting in conjunction with Congress (since these are the sources of non-fare funding). That said, it's a nonprofit that's run by a board whose members are appointed by the various stakeholders -- so if that's close enough to a government agency for you, I can see that.

Don't get me wrong: there are lots of things Metro can and should do to improve service and the way it's run. What you're seeing now, however, is more the impact of delays in the system (deferred maintenance, pay raises, etc.) than current mismanagement. Metro has sought (and never received) some kind of consistency in its federal funding, but because it doesn't have that, their ability to do the kind of long term planning necessary to adequately run a public transit system is somewhat limited.

Also, frankly, basing anything on the Examiner is kind of frightening. The Examiner is our local rag -- they deliver it for free to your house in a desperate attempt to increase circulation and advertising revenue. They exist solely to promote controversy, often where there is little or no substance. Just as the Washington Post is leaps and bounds ahead of the Washington Times, the Washington Times is leaps and bounds ahead of the Examiner.

[Jason McCullough]

Hey, look at that (http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/05/refuted-economic-doctrines-2-the-case-for-privatisation/).

This is the second in a planned series of posts assessing the implications of the global financial crisis for the economic ideas and policies that have been dominant for the past few decades. The large-scale privatisation of publicly-owned enterprises both in capitalist countries like the UK and Australia and in formerly communist countries after 1989 played a big role in promoting the kind of triumphalism that characterised much commentary about free-market capitalism in the 1990s and (to a somewhat lesser extent) in the years leading up to the crisis. How well do arguments for privatisation stand up in the light of the financial crisis.

[shift6]

How well do arguments for privatisation stand up in the light of the financial crisis.
Baby with the bathwater, man. How well do arguments for government management stand up in light of blizzards in Seattle?

This metro is just like so many other problems: managed and run by a GSE. I swear, as history trundles along these are the single biggest causes of corruption, mismanagement, and non-natural disasters I can think of.