If it behaves the way the MTA is behaving, what difference does it make? That's the point that people taking your side of this question keep ignoring.
As we've seen with PG&E's behavior on the other side of the country, these entities are treated like official state agencies whenever they find it convenient to be treated that way, and like private businesses when that's more convenient.
It is not in the riders' interest -- or the taxpayer's -- for anyone to be allowed to dictate who can publish maps of a publicly-funded transit system. Whether the MTA is called a "public-private partnership," a "utility," a "transit authority," a "public benefit corporation," or simply a "government agency" is, again, not the least bit relevant.
As we've seen with PG&E's behavior on the other side of the country, these entities are treated like official state agencies whenever they find it convenient to be treated that way, and like private businesses when that's more convenient.
It is not in the riders' interest -- or the taxpayer's -- for anyone to be allowed to dictate who can publish maps of a publicly-funded transit system. Whether the MTA is called a "public-private partnership," a "utility," a "transit authority," a "public benefit corporation," or simply a "government agency" is, again, not the least bit relevant.