Bostonist loves innovative thinking in government, but we know that not every proposed change is a good idea. Take the new study, released yesterday and reliably embraced by the governor, suggesting that it would be a good idea to privatize the Massachusetts Turnpike. "But Bostonist," you protest, "privatization and deregulation create competition, which increases efficiency and drives down costs!" Well, we say, sometimes. In the telecommunications industry, privatization works because, well, competition is possible. Likewise, deregulation in the airline industry has led to lower fares (and chronic bankruptcy problems, but that's no big deal (unless you're depending on an airline industry pension)). But if the Mass. Pike is private, who's going to compete? Route 9? If drivers are dissatisfied with the price of tolls and the quality of road maintenance, will they start commuting to Nashua instead?
"But," you say, "as it stands now, commuters have no options if they are unhappy with the Pike." And by saying that, you have played right into our next rhetorical trap (it's nice when we get to choose what you say): Commuters can effect change now because they get to vote for state government, and elected officials are presumably judged on the strength of their management of things like the Pike (OK, we'll admit it's not a perfect system, but it works in theory, you know?). If the Pike were run by a private company, it could "raise and lower tolls without political fallout," according to the Globe's summary of the study's conclusions. Bostonist thinks that's a terribly bad idea.
The Globe story says that the study was performed by The Pioneer Institute, which the article calls, simply, a Boston think tank. In fact, Pioneer is a rather right-wing think tank (not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's worth knowing), "committed to individual freedom and responsibility, limited and accountable government, and the application of free market principles to state and local policy," according to their website. Bostonist isn't exactly sure how taking an indispensable service like the Pike, which has no viable competition, and putting it in the control of a private party (which, by the study's own admission, would be unaccountable politically), makes for "accountable government." In the interest of fairness, however, we read the literature accompanying Pioneer's study. The emphasis is largely on how much money investors will pay up-front for the right to control the Pike, with a more hesitant suggestion that a private company might implement money-saving efficiencies (foremost among these being the use of more part-time workers without benefits - hooray!). Of course, big money pouring into the state's coffers is not to be scoffed at, but it seems to us that any funds gained that way could well be lost in the long term due to higher tolls and the poor maintenance and services that private companies tend to provide when they don't face any competition. Pioneer also celebrates the ease with which a private company could raise tolls, which are really just a tax (and one that falls disproportionately on poorer citizens). Perhaps this is why the governor, who has pledged not to raise taxes, likes the idea?
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
