I'm confused by the article. The main problem is that the line is too popular because the government under estimated ridership? How does this have anything to do with it being privatized? When they tried raising prices the city fought them? Should you not raise pricing when you have more customer than capacity?
depends on your goals. when prices are raised then the poorer segments of the population, who are usually the ones that need public transport the most, may not be able to afford to ride. it's one thing to raise prices to cover costs, but quite another to raise them to reduce congestion.
Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line
41–50 of 71 posts
Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line
#42I have a hard time following this article because it's so obviously one-sided and ranting. FWIW the Stockholm Metro is also privatized in the sense that operation, planning and maintenance is done by MTR Corporation, the same company that owns and operates the Hong Kong Metro. MTR also operate a lot of other subway systems in the world, for example Sydney. I don't see any problems inherit in the privatization: Stockh…
As far as by privatization goes, I don’t much care for it with busses. But I’m having trouble seeing the issue here with the train, other than the financials which seem favorable to the corporation.
well line9's profit is minus... (except for 2014 due to some accounting stuff...)
Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line
#43I have a hard time following this article because it's so obviously one-sided and ranting. FWIW the Stockholm Metro is also privatized in the sense that operation, planning and maintenance is done by MTR Corporation, the same company that owns and operates the Hong Kong Metro. MTR also operate a lot of other subway systems in the world, for example Sydney. I don't see any problems inherit in the privatization: Stockh…
I was so confused of the flow of writing and one sentence made me understand what just happened. "I grew up in Seoul in the 1990s before coming to the United States, so I missed all of Line 9’s construction and operations." The media in South Korea have criticized any privatization of public service for so long time. Trust me I have lived in this country more than 25 years. Even though author asserted that "I will li…
And the article mentions "it's not economically feasible to add more cabinets due to the extra construction work required..."
...but the line9 stations are actually built to accommodate 8 cabinets (instead of current 6), and there are even screen-doors ready for those cabinets...
Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line
#44I have a hard time following this article because it's so obviously one-sided and ranting. FWIW the Stockholm Metro is also privatized in the sense that operation, planning and maintenance is done by MTR Corporation, the same company that owns and operates the Hong Kong Metro. MTR also operate a lot of other subway systems in the world, for example Sydney. I don't see any problems inherit in the privatization: Stockh…
The proposed price hikes were a scandal at the time and public outrage was tangible. But the relevant context here is that the Mayor of Seoul is second only to the president, and usually it is someone with aspirations to run for president. There's things a Seoul Mayor a cannot do if he likes votes, and one of those is piss off everyone who uses the metro (which is everyone).
I think with privatisation, it just depends on the specifics. If the system can be privatised without bilking the ridership, compromising safety, or abusing the employees then, by all means, have at it. But if you're writing from the US, or the UK, especially if you work within the transportation system, it's understandable that you would get ranty when you consider how badly privatisation has fucked things up there.
Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line
#45I'm confused by the article. The main problem is that the line is too popular because the government under estimated ridership? How does this have anything to do with it being privatized? When they tried raising prices the city fought them? Should you not raise pricing when you have more customer than capacity?
So people got a incapable subway line when it could have been (and was) foreseen by everyone. The "solution" of raising prices to lower usage is not a good outcome for people whose taxes are guaranteeing revenue, and additionally, if raising prices didn't manage to lower ridership, it would be a reward.
In the end the government is liable for massive expenditures to fix or cover the problems of the "private" line. What was gained by privatization in this case, rather than just directly building the line, other than the guaranteed loss of any profit from it? It's another case of privatized profits and socialized losses.
Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line
#46I don't understand why the operation of the line wasn't tied to performance along certain metrics, like "percentage of cars at overcrowding", customer satisfaction, etc. Annual review, Drop below acceptable threshold on any of these metrics and it triggers a rebidding process and someone else gets to run the line.
The canonical answer is of course the 1997 Asian financial crisis. The crisis greatly strained governmental and municipal budget available for pretty much every public infrastructure and the 1998 Act on Private Investment in Social Overhead Capital Facilities (사회간접자본시설에 대한 민간 투자법) was introduced to fill this gap. The problematic minimum revenue guarantee stems from this law, originally intended to encourage private i…
Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
The canonical answer is of course the 1997 Asian financial crisis. The crisis greatly strained governmental and municipal budget available for pretty much every public infrastructure and the 1998 Act on Private Investment in Social Overhead Capital Facilities (사회간접자본시설에 대한 민간 투자법) was introduced to fill this gap. The problematic minimum revenue guarantee stems from this law, originally intended to encourage private i…
Was that part of IMF structural adjustments?
Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line
#48I can understand the privatization maximalists and - though it's harder - the minimalists. What's harder for me to get a hold on is the people who say some things - transportation, education, healthcare, housing - should be public and everything else should be private. I'd like an argument for why those things and not everything. Why buses and taxis? Why trains but not planes? What about boats? Why people but not goo…
Profit has to come from somewhere. In some cases, it can come from neglecting to maintain the infrastructure that the investors (usually the taxpayers) paid for to put you in business. Once the system collapses under the neglect, everyone is held hostage because the system is vital and then taxpayers are forced again at gunpoint to bail out the system. In the mean time, the profits of the mismanagement have been taken and are effectively unrecoverable.
The "politics" that comes in here is when people refuse to be robbed in this way and, instead, insist in a return on their investment (in the form of a functioning public utility). This is a consequence of democracy (fortunate or unfortunate, depending on your perspective).
Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line
#49I have a hard time following this article because it's so obviously one-sided and ranting. FWIW the Stockholm Metro is also privatized in the sense that operation, planning and maintenance is done by MTR Corporation, the same company that owns and operates the Hong Kong Metro. MTR also operate a lot of other subway systems in the world, for example Sydney. I don't see any problems inherit in the privatization: Stockh…
They're only staffing the trains and platforms, not to different from e.g. a police station paying a sub-contractor to sweep their floors and manage the reception desk. The police station is still mostly a government run thing.
For example, MTR doesn't invest any money in new lines/tunnels, or buy/maintain the trains.
I don't think it's fair to compare it to this Korean line, it's not apples to apples.
Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line
#50I have a hard time following this article because it's so obviously one-sided and ranting. FWIW the Stockholm Metro is also privatized in the sense that operation, planning and maintenance is done by MTR Corporation, the same company that owns and operates the Hong Kong Metro. MTR also operate a lot of other subway systems in the world, for example Sydney. I don't see any problems inherit in the privatization: Stockh…
> MTR Corporation Limited is a majority government-owned public transport operator and property developer in Hong Kong... > Owner: Hong Kong Government 75.09%, Others 24.91%
So I think MTR is still owned by government?