The real question is whether a monopoly utility company should be a private for-profit effort. Like what's the benefit here. You can't rely on the usual survival-of-the-fittest quality proposition because those are monopolies.
It’s a simple calculation. Would you want your local (almost certainly public) transit operator to take over your electric service? I’d suspect in the vast majority of places, the answer would be no.
You answer the question of what are the "benefits" with essentially another vocab word, and a single word at that, "incentives".
Public transit in America most often the answer would be no. But public transit of say the rest of the world with multi-billions of dollars invested over the years into the public transit infrastructure leading to public owned and operated highly functional transit systems.
A for profit company will invest when it makes sense from a bottom line perspective. A public non-profit without corruption will invest when it makes sense from a public good perspective.
Not if they are a monopoly.
What an idea!
I would love Transport for London to take over electric and water and internet provision in London, yep. And I feel like most everyone in the UK would prefer the trains to be renationalised.
The EU railway directive (2012) "separating management of railway operation and infrastructure from the provision of railway transport services, separation of accounts being compulsory and organizational or institutional separation being optional.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_European_Railway_Direct...
Also, surely you understand that the New York subway system’s problems cannot simply be chalked up to it being public?
A public entity is not restricted by the need to maximize profits and can fully concentrate on providing the best possible service within the budget.
Both public and private organizations can have efficiency challenges, which for the most part correlate with their size.
A private company that is granted a monopoly will tend to exhibit the worst of both worlds, maximizing private profits while providing minimal service and putting all risks onto the public sector.
Whether a company is for or non profit is almost beside the point. What made utilities work was that the private corp ran the business and the government board provided oversight. This eventually broke down as people are people whether they work at a for profit or non profit organization.
If the board becomes filled with people with a different agenda than providing cheap, safe, reliable power, then they will take actions that, over the long term, will make it impossible for the utility to do those things. The signs of this are not allowing new transmission lines or power plants, and directing that the company use specific technologies that are not part of the (cheaper/safer/more reliable) core values.
A public entity may have more mechanisms for transparency, whereas a private entity can keep also maintain appearances of good customer service, and as long as they're making profits the shareholders may not care about what's happening under the hood.
Until things get so bad that the private entity implodes, but by that time it's too late.
Because politicians cut its budget while requiring 24/7 operation, not because the subway operator doesn't have ~profit motive~
The MTA's dysfunction and inefficiency scale to accomodate whatever budget they are given and this will continue until city and state politicians are actually held accountable for its performance.
The organization's problems have very very little to do with budget constraints.
* https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/1/14112776/ne...
Chicago seems to be doing okay, or at least much better than NYC:
* https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/nyregion/chicago-l-train-...
The problems of the MTA are unique to the MTA itself (AFAICT), and should not necessarily be extrapolated to other places.
When I was a kid I got most places using public transportation and it was fine.
> S. David Freeman, who was appointed Chair of the California Power Authority in the midst of the crisis, made the following statements about Enron's involvement in testimony submitted before the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce and Tourism of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on May 15, 2002: [1]
> "There is one fundamental lesson we must learn from this experience: electricity is really different from everything else. It cannot be stored, it cannot be seen, and we cannot do without it, which makes opportunities to take advantage of a deregulated market endless. It is a public good that must be protected from private abuse. If Murphy's Law were written for a market approach to electricity, then the law would state 'any system that can be gamed, will be gamed, and at the worst possible time.' And a market approach for electricity is inherently gameable. Never again can we allow private interests to create artificial or even real shortages and to be in control. [1]
> "Enron stood for secrecy and a lack of responsibility. In electric power, we must have openness and companies that are responsible for keeping the lights on. We need to go back to companies that own power plants with clear responsibilities for selling real power under long-term contracts. There is no place for companies like Enron that own the equivalent of an electronic telephone book and game the system to extract an unnecessary middleman’s profits. Companies with power plants can compete for contracts to provide the bulk of our power at reasonable prices that reflect costs. People say that Governor Davis has been vindicated by the Enron confession."[1]
Hopefully stored battery energy on households can help prevent rolling blackouts impact, but until then any company running a crucial service needed for survival should be under heavy scrutiny, and switched to state/public run if they feel the need to game it.
In the Enron triggered emergencies, they were 'overscheduling' on purpose and 'megawatt laundering' [2]
> "There is a single connection between northern and southern California's power grids. I heard that Enron traders purposely overbooked that line, then caused others to need it. Next, by California's free-market rules, Enron was allowed to price-gouge at will." [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis#...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis#...