|
|
| Re: Metro Apple Express (345394) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > BusChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Metro Apple Express |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Sun May 1 20:39:37 2022, in response to Re: Metro Apple Express, posted by Allen45 on Sun May 1 19:41:58 2022. The matter of receiving city subsidies was based on politics rather than on substantive and objective criteria. So while Liberty Lines Express, New York Bus Service, and Command Bus Company were politically connected, Metro Apple Express was not. The thoughts were always how to keep Metro Apple Express from receiving subsidy, rather than thoughts on how to facilitate subsidy.The manner in which subsidies, and more importantly, profit, was allocated to franchisees provided no incentive for the franchisees to operate more efficiently, or to operate more service. If anything, the manner encouraged franchises to operate less service because the subsidy was limited by a fixed dollar amount. Command would not have sought to operate more service because doing so increased the risk that the operating expense dollar limitation would be exceeded, but no additional profit would be made from operating more service. As it stands now, the ultimate corporate parent of Command, now known as GTJ REIT, makes just as much money from leasing its bus garages to the City of New York (which, in turn, subleases them to MTABC) as it did when operating buses . . . but with much less risk of exceeding an operating expense limitation or the general headaches of operating useful bus service. All of these factors spelled doom for Metro Apple Express, not because the transportation was not desired, but because the ultimate goal were the playing of politics, maximizing subsidy, minimizing risk, all in the environment of a city administration incapable of devising good public policy. Now we are stuck with MTABC, but even it continues to operate without any definable mission. Franchises granted by the city are to individual franchisees, not transferable but upon consent of the city. Nor are franchises exclusive. So need for the city to "hold onto" a franchise, as if it were a bankable asset. Should there have been a desire for replacement franchises, new ones could have been granted. No one wanted the franchises. |
|
|
|