4 ms·

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 fra

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.
- TylerE 8y ago
  Your definition of 'Private' is interesting. Tokyo Metro is owned by... the national and local government.
  - karthikb 8y ago
    Tokyo metro is one company of many that provide subway services in Tokyo. There’s also JR, Keisei, and several other companies. Some are fully private, some are joint ventures with the government - but key is that none of these companies have oversight power over themselves.
    - inferiorhuman 8y ago
      In theory there is separate oversight over public transit in the United States as well. In California the CPUC regulates, for example, Muni and BART while the CHP has oversight over agencies that use state and federal highways (the subset of the Muni fleet that runs down Van Ness and 19th Ave is under the purview of the CHP). In practice the regulators are feckless.
    - CaptainZapp 8y ago
      Not to nitpick. But JR is not really one company, even though you get the impression that it is, due to the homogenity of, for example signage, partially quite comparable rolling stock and a shared (extremely efficient) reservation system. From Wikipedia: [1] The Japan Railways Group, more commonly known as JR Group (JRグループ Jeiāru Gurūpu), consists of seven for-profit companies that took over most of the assets and operations of the government-owned Japanese National Railways on April 1, 1987. Most of the liability of the JNR was assumed by the JNR Settlement Corporation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Railways_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Railways_Group
- thinkpad20 8y ago
  I think your point about operations and verification is spot on. However, it’s worth noting that Japan (less familiar with other countries) has tremendous cultural advantages over the US when it comes to privatizing infrastructure. Punctuality, cleanliness, attention to detail, engineering prowess, safety, collectivism — many things that lend themselves to a well-functioning transit system — are all deeply interwoven into Japanese history and culture in a way that is difficult to imagine being the case in America. Which isn’t to say that it couldn’t be successful here, but it’s not an equivalent set of circumstances.

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.

TylerE 8y ago
Your definition of 'Private' is interesting. Tokyo Metro is owned by... the national and local government.
- karthikb 8y ago
  Tokyo metro is one company of many that provide subway services in Tokyo. There’s also JR, Keisei, and several other companies. Some are fully private, some are joint ventures with the government - but key is that none of these companies have oversight power over themselves.
  - inferiorhuman 8y ago
    In theory there is separate oversight over public transit in the United States as well. In California the CPUC regulates, for example, Muni and BART while the CHP has oversight over agencies that use state and federal highways (the subset of the Muni fleet that runs down Van Ness and 19th Ave is under the purview of the CHP). In practice the regulators are feckless.
  - CaptainZapp 8y ago
    Not to nitpick. But JR is not really one company, even though you get the impression that it is, due to the homogenity of, for example signage, partially quite comparable rolling stock and a shared (extremely efficient) reservation system. From Wikipedia: [1] The Japan Railways Group, more commonly known as JR Group (JRグループ Jeiāru Gurūpu), consists of seven for-profit companies that took over most of the assets and operations of the government-owned Japanese National Railways on April 1, 1987. Most of the liability of the JNR was assumed by the JNR Settlement Corporation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Railways_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Railways_Group
thinkpad20 8y ago
I think your point about operations and verification is spot on. However, it’s worth noting that Japan (less familiar with other countries) has tremendous cultural advantages over the US when it comes to privatizing infrastructure. Punctuality, cleanliness, attention to detail, engineering prowess, safety, collectivism — many things that lend themselves to a well-functioning transit system — are all deeply interwoven into Japanese history and culture in a way that is difficult to imagine being the case in America. Which isn’t to say that it couldn’t be successful here, but it’s not an equivalent set of circumstances.