Report a Comment

Call me crazy, but I think WMATA does a pretty decent job with bus service.

Yes, perhaps it plays second fiddle to the rail system, but the bus system has made visible strides in the past 5-10 years. The buses themselves are nicer-looking and seem cleaner, and service on big routes isn't quite as erratic as it used to be.

Someone mentioned the bus line studies (Pennsylvania Ave, F-routes in MD, etc). At first, I shrugged these off as academic blather. But WMATA has followed through on some worthwhile findings from the studies -- and those changes have improved the system.

As for Circulator, it's been able to "succeed" thanks to its small size. Five routes and 50 buses is a boutiquey, niche operation. Add to that two dozen more routes -- at varying service levels and coverage profiles -- and the neat-and-streamlined Circulator suddenly becomes just as "unwieldy" as the system it's intended to improve.

As for alleged cost savings of private operation, it's a lot like how Wal-Mart built its business. Private operators usually -can- save money -- for a year or two or three. After that, costs tend to rise pretty sharply.

There's lots of talk of "mature" public systems and their legacy costs. It's a valid criticism; I'd recommend looking at mature -private- systems (Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc), where costs are equivalent to (if not higher than) publicly operated systems.

I'm not totally opposed to privatization -- it can be effective in small doses. But to expect that for-profit companies can operate a money-losing service in the long range... well, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!

by Neil G on Jun 28, 2012 9:39 am • link • report