5 ms·

NYC MTA needs billions of dollars to fix the system. NY state must raise taxes on the rich and deploy it too the MTA. The federal must chip in too. The MTA w

NYC MTA needs billions of dollars to fix the system. NY state must raise taxes on the rich and deploy it too the MTA. The federal must chip in too. The MTA will never make money and this is how it is.

zanny 9y ago
Where does the misguided notion infrastructure should make a profit even come from? Everyone hates on Amtrak for not being a profitable company. When in history has infrastructure ever existed for the sake of the network operators profit? It is always for the sake of profiting those who use it - the infrastructure enables profits, but in the same way sticking profits into medicine cripples the efficiency of the system, trying to stick rent seeking into infrastructure defeats the point of using it.
- qub1t 9y ago
  Hong Kong has one of the best subway systems in the world and it generates a profit every year [1]. The USPS also generates profits as well [2]. I would argue that the profit motive incentivises efficiency in both of those examples. The best innovation often happens when working under constraints; often a drive for profit results in better service for everyone using the infrastructure. Of course this isn't the case 100% of the time, like your example of medicine, which is why I think that to get the best of both worlds you need a mix of government regulation with privatized capitalism. But I think it would be incorrect to dismiss the profit incentive entirely as being bad, and probably in the case of US infrastructure we would benefit from more privatization and not the other way around. [1] http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/30/news/hong-kong-mtr-subway-property/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/30/news/hong-kong-mtr-subway-pr... [2] http://www.newsweek.com/post-office-aint-broken-its-profit-so-why-fix-it-397788 http://www.newsweek.com/post-office-aint-broken-its-profit-s...
  - casefields 9y ago
    That was USPS's first profit in 5 years just so we are clear. http://www.govexec.com/management/2016/02/usps-records-first-profit-five-years-obama-calls-shedding-12k-postal-jobs/125825/ http://www.govexec.com/management/2016/02/usps-records-first...
  - bo1024 9y ago
    There's a couple interesting issues at play. One is that a profit incentive can be at work without the goal being to break even. For example, perhaps the goal is to subsidize by only $XXX million/year and above/beyond this goal is considered "profitable" with appropriate incentives. Another is the issue of correlation/causation. Well-run systems may tend to be efficient in their use of monetary resources (almost by definition), but it's not clear that setting a for-profit goal will be a cure-all intervention that causes a system to be well-run. It's also a big leap from setting profit goals to full-on privatization, which I'm skeptical of for several reasons. Private companies are often only pushed to be "good enough", better than the competition. A public transit system that is just barely better than a cab (say for daily work commute) is no good at all. Private companies tend to have short-term incentives, for instance, the CEO may get a bonus based on the current year's profit, which will be destroyed by investment in infrastructure. Companies care about maximizing revenue rather than welfare. Etc.
- Symbiote 9y ago
  > When in history has infrastructure ever existed for the sake of the network operators profit? Most railways in Europe and North America were built for the profit of their investors, and made a profit for a long time. Before that, so were some highways, the canals, and many bridges. In Britain, the railways were bankrupted by WW2, and afterwards consolidated into a national company (British Rail).
- martinald 9y ago
  I do agree with your sentiments entirely but the MTA should be doing much better. Transport for London (IMO the complete opposite of MTA: on the whole incredibly well run and generally well funded) has went from making an enormous operational loss to near break even in the last 15 years. If the trends hold it is projected to make a >£1bn operational profit per year by 2021. NB I'm talking about operational expenditure not capital, which is funded from grants from govt, which currently stand at around £3bn per annum. It's possible to see how it could be entirely profit generating in a couple of decades though Inc capex. Assuming everyone doesn't leave due to brexit.
GirlsCanCode 9y ago
Pure evil. Everyone uses the subway, everyone should pay. Not just "the rich."
rayiner 9y ago
The MTA spends about twice as much per ride as the London Tube. It doesn't need more money.

zanny 9y ago

Where does the misguided notion infrastructure should make a profit even come from? Everyone hates on Amtrak for not being a profitable company. When in history has infrastructure ever existed for the sake of the network operators profit? It is always for the sake of profiting those who use it - the infrastructure enables profits, but in the same way sticking profits into medicine cripples the efficiency of the system, trying to stick rent seeking into infrastructure defeats the point of using it.

qub1t 9y ago
Hong Kong has one of the best subway systems in the world and it generates a profit every year [1]. The USPS also generates profits as well [2]. I would argue that the profit motive incentivises efficiency in both of those examples. The best innovation often happens when working under constraints; often a drive for profit results in better service for everyone using the infrastructure. Of course this isn't the case 100% of the time, like your example of medicine, which is why I think that to get the best of both worlds you need a mix of government regulation with privatized capitalism. But I think it would be incorrect to dismiss the profit incentive entirely as being bad, and probably in the case of US infrastructure we would benefit from more privatization and not the other way around. [1] http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/30/news/hong-kong-mtr-subway-property/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/30/news/hong-kong-mtr-subway-pr... [2] http://www.newsweek.com/post-office-aint-broken-its-profit-so-why-fix-it-397788 http://www.newsweek.com/post-office-aint-broken-its-profit-s...
- casefields 9y ago
  That was USPS's first profit in 5 years just so we are clear. http://www.govexec.com/management/2016/02/usps-records-first-profit-five-years-obama-calls-shedding-12k-postal-jobs/125825/ http://www.govexec.com/management/2016/02/usps-records-first...
- bo1024 9y ago
  There's a couple interesting issues at play. One is that a profit incentive can be at work without the goal being to break even. For example, perhaps the goal is to subsidize by only $XXX million/year and above/beyond this goal is considered "profitable" with appropriate incentives. Another is the issue of correlation/causation. Well-run systems may tend to be efficient in their use of monetary resources (almost by definition), but it's not clear that setting a for-profit goal will be a cure-all intervention that causes a system to be well-run. It's also a big leap from setting profit goals to full-on privatization, which I'm skeptical of for several reasons. Private companies are often only pushed to be "good enough", better than the competition. A public transit system that is just barely better than a cab (say for daily work commute) is no good at all. Private companies tend to have short-term incentives, for instance, the CEO may get a bonus based on the current year's profit, which will be destroyed by investment in infrastructure. Companies care about maximizing revenue rather than welfare. Etc.
Symbiote 9y ago
> When in history has infrastructure ever existed for the sake of the network operators profit? Most railways in Europe and North America were built for the profit of their investors, and made a profit for a long time. Before that, so were some highways, the canals, and many bridges. In Britain, the railways were bankrupted by WW2, and afterwards consolidated into a national company (British Rail).
martinald 9y ago
I do agree with your sentiments entirely but the MTA should be doing much better. Transport for London (IMO the complete opposite of MTA: on the whole incredibly well run and generally well funded) has went from making an enormous operational loss to near break even in the last 15 years. If the trends hold it is projected to make a >£1bn operational profit per year by 2021. NB I'm talking about operational expenditure not capital, which is funded from grants from govt, which currently stand at around £3bn per annum. It's possible to see how it could be entirely profit generating in a couple of decades though Inc capex. Assuming everyone doesn't leave due to brexit.

GirlsCanCode 9y ago

Pure evil. Everyone uses the subway, everyone should pay. Not just "the rich."

rayiner 9y ago

The MTA spends about twice as much per ride as the London Tube. It doesn't need more money.