|
|
| Re: Transfer mystery (341546) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > BusChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Transfer mystery |
|
|
Posted by BusRider on Thu Jan 14 04:34:00 2021, in response to Re: Transfer mystery, posted by BusMgr on Thu Jan 14 01:01:16 2021. Thank you for your explanation, I have never heard franchise and transit in the same topic until here. I definitely need to learn more about law!I do think it’s a force fed proposition, there very well could be a balance to help both parties in all actuality. However, in the times we’re in now and the sports commentating of law over the years, there’s so many loopholes, restrictions, misinterpretations, even little accountability it makes private business definitely a long hard thought. Granted the “reckless” and greed ways of back then we did improve a great deal, especially with safety measures. In terms of transit, I do think financially it’s better to have publicly owned authorities for like major projects. Though I do feel there’s far less opportunities for innovation because it’s such on a bigger scale (in the United States at least). For example, outside of NYC, where Bus Rapid Transit has been popping up in the past decade let’s say, many agencies have used that advantage full circle. While locking in funding from the feds, allowed the affected municipalities to construct and/or greatly improve pedestrian and road infrastructure. Then in turn creates a more livable community and hopefully long term economic boost. In NYC, that’s a whole different ball game. On the other hand because it’s a public entity, you got RFP’s and adopted standards that drive decisions which gets even more diluted due to annual budgets. As with private companies, they had more leeway for creativity , but less and no guaranteed source of revenue and support. Add the backhand ways of operations the company tanks either way. If there was a regulated balance, which allowed private companies to work with government. I still see a success, it takes the direct burden from the feds, allows the company to specialize their craft but then has financial support when government is really needed and I don’t mean bailouts. I’m saying if a company had a major project or wanted to implement a new technology the funds would be there and the feds would still get their financial cut. However, if a company tanked in an ill manner it would be treated as any other business outside of transit. |
|
|
|