bigkid posted:I would be careful about that,the original subways were a public/private venture, they wouldn't have happened without both being involved. The IND was built by the city, and it was built in time as well, and was better run than either the BRT or IRT during that timefame, not to mention that the IRT and BMT ran their systems into the ground by the time the city took them over. Neither private industry nor government have a monopoly on virtue or on stupidity,if you look at mass transit they both have some amazing stuff, and more than a bit of failures, scandals and downright ugly things (there was more than a bit of corruption around the els and trolleys in NYC, Jay Gould and other types owned them at various times, and millions were stolen through graft and monopistic practices, when the IRT was built there were all kinds of bid rigging, real estate insider bribery for information on routes,you name it.
You're overlooking a key point in saying that IRT and BMT ran their systems into the ground. That has always been the results when governments refused to allow private companies to raise their rates to cover the cost of the service.
But the problem with that is that rates that cover the cost of the service woudl be so high that the average user couldn't afford to use the services. For that reason, there is nowhere in the world that a major urban transit system is funded as a private enterprise.
