3 ms·

Why is this a bad thing? Public projects should be works that benefit the public at large, why doe everything have to lead to profit? We have a national govern

Why is this a bad thing? Public projects should be works that benefit the public at large, why doe everything have to lead to profit? We have a national government, why can't they provide grants to increase and build more railways? I mean the US government provides billions in grants/money to maintain and build roads because States are unable, whether politically or mathematically, to raise taxes to cover the true costs of road maintenance.

goatlover 8y ago
There's quite a few people who would rather privatize as much of that as they could and setup toll roads everywhere, as opposed to funding more projects.
bobthepanda 8y ago
> Public projects should be works that benefit the public at large, why doe everything have to lead to profit? The current model is equivalent to socializing the losses and privatizing the profits. Let's go all public or all private but not some horrible mishmash system like we did with healthcare. The states have actually been raising gas taxes due to the inability of the federal government to do so (and provide more funding.) In fact the main issue these days is that the federal government hands out lots of money for new projects but not a lot for maintenance, which just encourages localities and states to spend a lot of money on infrastructure they don't really need because they don't need to think about the long term liabilities and the lifecycle replacement.
rayiner 8y ago
I think Brightline is a really good thing, if NIMBYIM doesn’t kill it. As to the government building things: it can’t. For whatever reason our governments in the US are completely unable to build and maintain infrastructure, especially transit. The two best American systems, NYC and DC, are in shambles now after decades of mismanagement. This is not unique to transit: local governments all over the country are poisoning kids through ancient lead water pipes. We are unwilling to spend the money, and when we do, our outrageous public unions and NIMBYism cause things to cost multiples what it costs Europe or Asia. That’s not true of all governments. (Though, I think you’d be surprised to see that most European countries have a heavier dose of privatization than the US, though less than Japan.) But for whatever reason, maybe some moral deficiency in our body politic, its true of ours. Given that, developing a market solution is a good option. And allowing the transit provider to “tax” both sides of the equation by charging fares as well as rents on surrounding land, is an economically sound way of optimizing the incentive to invest.

goatlover 8y ago

There's quite a few people who would rather privatize as much of that as they could and setup toll roads everywhere, as opposed to funding more projects.

bobthepanda 8y ago

> Public projects should be works that benefit the public at large, why doe everything have to lead to profit? The current model is equivalent to socializing the losses and privatizing the profits. Let's go all public or all private but not some horrible mishmash system like we did with healthcare. The states have actually been raising gas taxes due to the inability of the federal government to do so (and provide more funding.) In fact the main issue these days is that the federal government hands out lots of money for new projects but not a lot for maintenance, which just encourages localities and states to spend a lot of money on infrastructure they don't really need because they don't need to think about the long term liabilities and the lifecycle replacement.

rayiner 8y ago

I think Brightline is a really good thing, if NIMBYIM doesn’t kill it. As to the government building things: it can’t. For whatever reason our governments in the US are completely unable to build and maintain infrastructure, especially transit. The two best American systems, NYC and DC, are in shambles now after decades of mismanagement. This is not unique to transit: local governments all over the country are poisoning kids through ancient lead water pipes. We are unwilling to spend the money, and when we do, our outrageous public unions and NIMBYism cause things to cost multiples what it costs Europe or Asia. That’s not true of all governments. (Though, I think you’d be surprised to see that most European countries have a heavier dose of privatization than the US, though less than Japan.) But for whatever reason, maybe some moral deficiency in our body politic, its true of ours. Given that, developing a market solution is a good option. And allowing the transit provider to “tax” both sides of the equation by charging fares as well as rents on surrounding land, is an economically sound way of optimizing the incentive to invest.