4 ms·
>Is the political will (or rather actual monies required) to spend 15 billion [1] on the MTA shortfall the same as not prohibiting a company from operating a ta
by 6d0debc071 11y ago
>Is the political will (or rather actual monies required) to spend 15 billion [1] on the MTA shortfall the same as not prohibiting a company from operating a tax service?
It's not required that the two costs be identical for the writer's question to make sense. It's known that the Uber investment >||= the necessary criteria, but it's not known by how much. Maybe it was just about enough, or maybe it exceeded it by miles.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- omonra 11y agoThe supposition that Uber spent 15bio to lobby NYC to let it operate in the city is nonsensical. Nevermind the alternative that it's not Uber's business to spend money on fixing the L train.
- 6d0debc071 11y ago> The supposition that Uber spent 15bio to lobby NYC to let it operate in the city is nonsensical. The question was what the effect of directing that sort of campaign towards urging improvements to the rail infrastructure would be, not what the cost of the rail infrastructure would be. They're related because the more expensive something is the less progress you're likely to make on it if you choose to approach it without looking at things like efficiency and labour improvements, but they're a long way away from being anywhere near the same thing.
- omonra 11y agoYes - and the answer to the question "what would happen if those same people mounted a similarly forceful campaign to get Governor Cuomo to clean out and fully fund the MTA" is no effect. That's why his point is stupid - because that energy directed at funding the MTA would be a waste. It's like saying "instead of using your a/c to cool your apartment, did you consider putting it outside so that we could cool down the whole city block instead of just your private little space?"