8 ms·

i sure wouldn't mind some vc-subsidized underground trains. maybe if they became competitive rapid transit operators as well, the world could become a better p

i sure wouldn't mind some vc-subsidized underground trains. maybe if they became competitive rapid transit operators as well, the world could become a better place

perfmode 8y ago
my dream is to buy the NYC metro system and take drastic measures to revive it.
- peterwwillis 8y ago
  At this point, with a sufficient fortune, the simplest, most drastic thing would be to buy all new infrastructure, hire 10,000 workers, and install it all over a couple months. The current system includes just over 6,000 trains, on 36 lines, traveling through 472 stations, on 245 miles of route track (not counting the other 597 miles of track), though the upgrade only requires a small percentage of those. A total shutdown would interrupt over 135 Million rides per month.
pyrophane 8y ago
I'm sure it would be great until they captured the market then raised prices and started sharing your data with 3rd parties as an additional way to monetize.
- guhidalg 8y ago
  At which point people would outrage and the government buys it out for political capital. Still sounds like a win win to me.
  - filesystem 8y ago
    Sorry but when has this happened? Which government?
    - optimuspaul 8y ago
      Buys is the most suspect word in that. Seems more likely the kind of government that would do that is more the type to seize the company. I'm skeptical, like you, that this would end positively.
    - lainga 8y ago
      There are things which have not happened which are yet possible.
- abhiminator 8y ago
  >started sharing your data with 3rd parties as an additional way to monetize. Germany's national broadcaster Deutsche Welle produced an excellent documentary looking at the exact same scenario you described. [0] It looked into the possibility of making short-haul transportation (focusing primarily on Hyperloop) virtually free with just one caveat: a precondition that users share all their private data that advertisers might find valuable -- free ride in exchange for ad-targetable data -- scary and intriguing at the same time. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER9vlfPSBa8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER9vlfPSBa8
  - notarealaccount 8y ago
    Am I the only one who wouldn't mind a responsible way for people to target me with things I don't know about which I might be interested in?
    - aalleavitch 8y ago
      Of course not, but the responsible part is what’s missing. Advertisers aren’t just showing you a product, they are trying to convince you to do what they want and they’re more than willing to exploit psychology and circumstances to get you to do it. Sometimes what they want you to do is good for you too, often it is not.
    - 394549 8y ago
      > Am I the only one who wouldn't mind a responsible way for people to target me with things I don't know about which I might be interested in? Targeting is about maximizing profits for the advertisers, it's not about maximizing value to you. If they can use targeting to take value from you in order to give it to themselves, they will. For instance, you could be bombarded with targeted ads for product A when you'd really be happier with product B. You can contrive scenarios where ad targeting is a win-win, but those scenarios are misleading because they go against the underlying incentives. I wouldn't mind a neutral, personalized product recommendation engine, but that's not what ad targeting is.
      - 8y ago
GW150914 8y ago
For a vision of how that plays out, see: United Kingdom. It doesn’t end well, not well at all.
- billybolton 8y ago
  Tldr for the lazy?
  - GW150914 8y ago
    From Wikipedia The process was very controversial at the time, and still is, and its success is hotly debated – with the claimed benefits including a reduced cost to the taxpayer, lower fares, improved customer service, and more investment. Despite opposition from the Labour Party, who gained power in 1997 under Tony Blair, the process has never been reversed wholesale by any later government, and the system remains largely unaltered. A significant change came in 2001 with the collapse of Railtrack, which saw its assets passed to the state-owned Network Rail (NR), with track maintenance also brought in-house under NR in 2004. The regulatory structures have also subsequently changed. The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/07/britains-railways-is-this-the-best-we-can-do-renationalisation-strikes-fare-rises https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/07/britains-rai... Citylab https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/09/why-britains-railway-privatization-failed/3378/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/09/why-britains-... Science Direct https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0155998214000416 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S015599821...
    - anon1385 8y ago
      Even the Financial Times, notoriously partisan backers of privatisation and markets, struggles to make the case for rail privatisation these days (although they do try, bless them). https://www.ft.com/content/d82848ca-f7ba-11e7-88f7-5465a6ce1a00 https://www.ft.com/content/d82848ca-f7ba-11e7-88f7-5465a6ce1... >There is a growing consensus among both executives and industry experts as well as the public that Britain’s unique attempt to create competition on Britain’s rail network has not delivered. >While it has led to more services, and encouraged more users to pay higher prices, it has not unleashed the productivity improvement necessary both to upgrade the network and stabilise the network’s finances. >Over the same period, for instance, London’s state-owned metro network, Transport for London, has grown just as quickly and delivered much more state-of-the-art investment.
duxup 8y ago
It would be nice except for the areas they suddenly choose not to serve.
giantsloth 8y ago
This happened with trains in the 19th century and it was an absolute disaster. Please learn your history on privatized public goods. It results in massive fragmentation in standards, extreme levels of corruption and an overall worse experience for most people.
- virmundi 8y ago
  We know about the downsides now. For example, the New York system was private and actually paid for itself. New York subsidized the system. Now it's inefficient, poorly maintained, and expensive due to excessive salaries. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPhC3-9mSb4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPhC3-9mSb4
  - inferiorhuman 8y ago
    > For example, the New York system was private and actually paid for itself. Which New York system? The New York MTA is the result of consolidating multiple, unprofitable systems (e.g. LIRR, New Haven, Staten Island). Most were snatched out of the jaws of bankruptcy by the government as commuter service just isn't profitable much of the time. Let's not forget that the private rapid transit (BMT and IRT) didn't work out so well either (bankruptcy and poorly thought out contracts) and eventually was acquired by New York city.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    The New York system was never really "private." The IRT and BMT were designed by the city, mostly built by the city, and were leased to the private operators. The IND was always municipally owned and operated. The city bought all of the systems in 1940, about 35 years after the first one was built. That is not to say you can't have private systems that work (Tokyo, Hong Kong). New York just isn't a particularly good example.
- karthikb 8y ago
  Suggest that you actually look at privately run transit infrastructure that exists today. Tokyo subway systems (JR, Tokyo Metro, Keisei) - all private. Or Hong Kong - MTR is private. The real problem is putting operations and verification in the same hat - public or private. Private transit systems work well when government regulators have the power to set and enforce a strict SLA. They fail without oversight. Same with public systems. When the operational and regulatory agency are the same, it becomes hard to penalize failures.
jimmaswell 8y ago
Elon's Boring Company's working on something like that, too. I hope that venture succeeds.

i sure wouldn't mind some vc-subsidized underground trains. maybe if they became competitive rapid transit operators as well, the world could become a better place

perfmode 8y ago

my dream is to buy the NYC metro system and take drastic measures to revive it.

peterwwillis 8y ago
At this point, with a sufficient fortune, the simplest, most drastic thing would be to buy all new infrastructure, hire 10,000 workers, and install it all over a couple months. The current system includes just over 6,000 trains, on 36 lines, traveling through 472 stations, on 245 miles of route track (not counting the other 597 miles of track), though the upgrade only requires a small percentage of those. A total shutdown would interrupt over 135 Million rides per month.

pyrophane 8y ago

I'm sure it would be great until they captured the market then raised prices and started sharing your data with 3rd parties as an additional way to monetize.

guhidalg 8y ago
At which point people would outrage and the government buys it out for political capital. Still sounds like a win win to me.
- filesystem 8y ago
  Sorry but when has this happened? Which government?
  - optimuspaul 8y ago
    Buys is the most suspect word in that. Seems more likely the kind of government that would do that is more the type to seize the company. I'm skeptical, like you, that this would end positively.
  - lainga 8y ago
    There are things which have not happened which are yet possible.
abhiminator 8y ago
>started sharing your data with 3rd parties as an additional way to monetize. Germany's national broadcaster Deutsche Welle produced an excellent documentary looking at the exact same scenario you described. [0] It looked into the possibility of making short-haul transportation (focusing primarily on Hyperloop) virtually free with just one caveat: a precondition that users share all their private data that advertisers might find valuable -- free ride in exchange for ad-targetable data -- scary and intriguing at the same time. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER9vlfPSBa8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER9vlfPSBa8
- notarealaccount 8y ago
  Am I the only one who wouldn't mind a responsible way for people to target me with things I don't know about which I might be interested in?
  - aalleavitch 8y ago
    Of course not, but the responsible part is what’s missing. Advertisers aren’t just showing you a product, they are trying to convince you to do what they want and they’re more than willing to exploit psychology and circumstances to get you to do it. Sometimes what they want you to do is good for you too, often it is not.
  - 394549 8y ago
    > Am I the only one who wouldn't mind a responsible way for people to target me with things I don't know about which I might be interested in? Targeting is about maximizing profits for the advertisers, it's not about maximizing value to you. If they can use targeting to take value from you in order to give it to themselves, they will. For instance, you could be bombarded with targeted ads for product A when you'd really be happier with product B. You can contrive scenarios where ad targeting is a win-win, but those scenarios are misleading because they go against the underlying incentives. I wouldn't mind a neutral, personalized product recommendation engine, but that's not what ad targeting is.
    - 8y ago

GW150914 8y ago

For a vision of how that plays out, see: United Kingdom. It doesn’t end well, not well at all.

billybolton 8y ago
Tldr for the lazy?
- GW150914 8y ago
  From Wikipedia The process was very controversial at the time, and still is, and its success is hotly debated – with the claimed benefits including a reduced cost to the taxpayer, lower fares, improved customer service, and more investment. Despite opposition from the Labour Party, who gained power in 1997 under Tony Blair, the process has never been reversed wholesale by any later government, and the system remains largely unaltered. A significant change came in 2001 with the collapse of Railtrack, which saw its assets passed to the state-owned Network Rail (NR), with track maintenance also brought in-house under NR in 2004. The regulatory structures have also subsequently changed. The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/07/britains-railways-is-this-the-best-we-can-do-renationalisation-strikes-fare-rises https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/07/britains-rai... Citylab https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/09/why-britains-railway-privatization-failed/3378/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/09/why-britains-... Science Direct https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0155998214000416 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S015599821...
  - anon1385 8y ago
    Even the Financial Times, notoriously partisan backers of privatisation and markets, struggles to make the case for rail privatisation these days (although they do try, bless them). https://www.ft.com/content/d82848ca-f7ba-11e7-88f7-5465a6ce1a00 https://www.ft.com/content/d82848ca-f7ba-11e7-88f7-5465a6ce1... >There is a growing consensus among both executives and industry experts as well as the public that Britain’s unique attempt to create competition on Britain’s rail network has not delivered. >While it has led to more services, and encouraged more users to pay higher prices, it has not unleashed the productivity improvement necessary both to upgrade the network and stabilise the network’s finances. >Over the same period, for instance, London’s state-owned metro network, Transport for London, has grown just as quickly and delivered much more state-of-the-art investment.

duxup 8y ago

It would be nice except for the areas they suddenly choose not to serve.

giantsloth 8y ago

This happened with trains in the 19th century and it was an absolute disaster. Please learn your history on privatized public goods. It results in massive fragmentation in standards, extreme levels of corruption and an overall worse experience for most people.

virmundi 8y ago
We know about the downsides now. For example, the New York system was private and actually paid for itself. New York subsidized the system. Now it's inefficient, poorly maintained, and expensive due to excessive salaries. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPhC3-9mSb4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPhC3-9mSb4
- inferiorhuman 8y ago
  > For example, the New York system was private and actually paid for itself. Which New York system? The New York MTA is the result of consolidating multiple, unprofitable systems (e.g. LIRR, New Haven, Staten Island). Most were snatched out of the jaws of bankruptcy by the government as commuter service just isn't profitable much of the time. Let's not forget that the private rapid transit (BMT and IRT) didn't work out so well either (bankruptcy and poorly thought out contracts) and eventually was acquired by New York city.
- rayiner 8y ago
  The New York system was never really "private." The IRT and BMT were designed by the city, mostly built by the city, and were leased to the private operators. The IND was always municipally owned and operated. The city bought all of the systems in 1940, about 35 years after the first one was built. That is not to say you can't have private systems that work (Tokyo, Hong Kong). New York just isn't a particularly good example.
karthikb 8y ago
Suggest that you actually look at privately run transit infrastructure that exists today. Tokyo subway systems (JR, Tokyo Metro, Keisei) - all private. Or Hong Kong - MTR is private. The real problem is putting operations and verification in the same hat - public or private. Private transit systems work well when government regulators have the power to set and enforce a strict SLA. They fail without oversight. Same with public systems. When the operational and regulatory agency are the same, it becomes hard to penalize failures.

jimmaswell 8y ago

Elon's Boring Company's working on something like that, too. I hope that venture succeeds.