14 ms·

The problem with urban transport systems is that no one sees them for what they really are... an expensive thing that drives the economy. There seems to be an o

The problem with urban transport systems is that no one sees them for what they really are... an expensive thing that drives the economy. There seems to be an obsession in the west with making public transport pay for itself, but the reality is that a few billion invested in better public transport results in a lot more billions being made elsewhere. We need to get away from this idea that public transport systems need to break even or turn a profit. They are there to help make money in other ways. An efficient reliable transport system should cost the taxpayer money, but they will get that back in profit elsewhere through a thriving local economy.

anigbrowl 8y ago
Right? The economics of fare enforcement are a great illustration of this. It's probably more efficient to just abolish fare collection altogether.
- yesenadam 8y ago
  I wrote a letter to the Sydney Morning herald about 15 years ago saying, OK, starting today, let's make all public transportation free, by not paying for it anymore. All it takes is everyone acting together. They didn't publish my letter. I really shouldn't have given up so easily - I still think it's a good idea. Just need to set a date and get everyone talking about it.
- mrsuprawsm 8y ago
  This been attempted in quite a few places: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/oct/15/i-leave-the-car-at-home-how-free-buses-are-revolutionising-one-french-city https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/oct/15/i-leave-the-c... > 'in 2017 there were 99 fare-free public transport networks around the world: 57 in Europe, 27 in North America, 11 in South America, 3 in China and one in Australia. Many are smaller than Dunkirk and offer free transit limited to certain times, routes and people.'
jkaplowitz 8y ago
The ideas you're saying are quite common in the West, as you say, but that's not the attitude in NYC. Everyone realizes it's worth funding and fixing. The disputes are about the who, what, how, and paid by whom.
- InitialLastName 8y ago
  The issue is really that the MTA is funded and controlled by the State of New York, while it predominantly serves the City of New York. Since the population (especially the voting population) of the city is <0.5 of the state population, but the city is an outsized chunk of the state's total economy, the state uses funding of the transit system as a weapon to get the city to acquiesce to other demands. Hence why the NYC mayor is so intent on funding worthless streetcars and ferries; they let him get out from under the thumb of the state.
  - eric_h 8y ago
    > Hence why the NYC mayor is so intent on funding worthless streetcars and ferries I'm assuming you're using the "worthless" adjective only for the streetcars - I use the NYC Ferry regularly (a stop opened near my apt last year) and it's way better than the subway. I have to walk a bit further on the other side, but it's still way more comfortable.
    - deminature 8y ago
      Streetcars aren't even necessarily worthless. They're called trams in Australia and Sydney has recently rolled out a network after seeing how heavily utilized they are in Melbourne, and how convenient they are for short-distance travel. Pretty much everyone who works in the city has a tram trip somewhere in their commute. Provided the tracks run past places people need to go, there's no reason they need to be worthless.
      - umichguy 8y ago
        Melbourne trams are awesome! Sure, they're not everywhere or go everywhere but for near the city center and some main routes they make so much sense.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
closetohome 8y ago
Absolutely -- and you can see this even in the article. They talk about raising fares and cutting service, with no acknowledgement that their primary source of income shouldn't be fares, and their primary budget cuts shouldn't come from reduced service. This article from last year does a much better job of covering how things have gotten to the state they're in - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-system-failure-delays.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
- martinald 8y ago
  NYC subway fares are insanely cheap compared to the rest of the (developed) world. $2.75 single for any distance is incredibly low. In London that same fare in rush hour would be anywhere between $4 and $15+ depending on the length of the journey (and NYC has much higher GDP per capita than London, plus the £ is on its arse at the moment). Even Berlin is marginally more expensive, in a much smaller & less economically prosperous city. Keep in mind also that if you don't raise fares you are effectively cutting them because of inflation.
  - avip 8y ago
    2.30$ CAD in Vancouver for 1.5h, you can easily cross the entire "city" on that price-tag.
    - 8note 8y ago
      Why is city in quotes?
      - andrewshadura 8y ago
        I guess that's because the greater Vancouver area is made up of multiple localities officially designated as cities, even though in many cases there are no visible gaps between them anywhere other than on the map. The transport system is divided in zones, so travelling to, say, Coquitlam will cost you twice as much as travelling within the Vancouver downtown.
tikhonj 8y ago
It's also interesting how people don't see public roads in the same way—people don't expect roads to cover their own expenses directly, expect free parking as a human right and bridle at toll roads or gasoline taxes. People need to see public transport as "roads that don't need cars".
- r00fus 8y ago
  One feeds into the petroleum economy and one doesn't. Guess which one is "preferred"?
  - Zhenya 8y ago
    The one that provides people (the illusion of) liberty through movement.
    - dwaltrip 8y ago
      Cars and roads have plenty of problems, sure, but I have no idea what you mean by this "illusion of freedom".
      - TheSoftwareGuy 8y ago
        He's likely referring to how (some) people enjoy driving because of the sense of freedom & control it gives them. But he is asserting that this is just an illusion. Honestly, I feel the same way, since most time I spend driving I spend sitting in traffic or something.
        Zhenya 8y ago
        That's right (I'm the OP) - I love driving and work in the auto industry. The biggest pitch of the car(look at the commercials) is that your car defines you, and provides you a lifestyle and freedom. However, there really is an element of freedom. You can drive where you want when you want. It's just that the average person sits in bumper to bumper traffic.
Brakenshire 8y ago
It’s not bad for the service to fund itself in ongoing costs, Transport for London is self-sufficient for instance, as long as the money goes back into the service. That’s a good discipline to maintain an efficient service. But agree that initial capital investments should be thought about in the way you’re discussing.
pzone 8y ago
In Tokyo, the rail transit system (including subways) is operated by a network of private companies. These train operators make a net profit from fares and other revenues, and the system is generally well liked by its customers. Even if the idea of privatization makes you cringe, the idea that public transit is inevitably a money pit or loss leader is misguided. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/10/why-tokyos-privately-owned-rail-systems-work-so-well/389/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/10/why-tokyos-pr...
- rayiner 8y ago
  The key difference with Tokyo probably isn't privatization, but that the rail operators own the land around the stations, so often get to charge both ends of each trip: the rider and the business the rider travels to.
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    Sounds like a smart policy: the railway operator is pressured to serve areas where there is actually demand for the service, thus avoiding wasteful spending building non-performing lines, and is pressured to provide quality services to keep real estate prices up.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  It's worth noting that they got there because at the time of development, the rail companies were able to buy up the surrounding land and develop that. They reinvested their real estate profits into more rail and more real estate, creating a virtuous cycle. (Hong Kong, one of the only other profitable systems, did something similar by having the government effectively transfer land for free initially.) American rail systems largely didn't develop around their stations, and if they bothered to develop around their stations they sold the land after construction and that was it. For them to do so today would require billions, if not tens of billions of dollars to provide fair compensation for eminent domain for land and property around stations. And that's before the legal costs to fight all the resulting litigation, if they even were allowed to do it.
rayiner 8y ago
Nobody expects the NYC subway to "break even or even turn a profit." The subway historically recovers less than 50% of its operating expenditures from fares, compared to 70% for Berlin, 88% for Amsterdam, and over 100% in Tokyo, Taipei, Hong Kong, and Singapore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio. MTA is broke because it costs several times as much for MTA to do anything compared to its counterparts in other Europe: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-....
- o0-0o 8y ago
  Fare jumpers, bums, filth, lax schedules, ignorant employees, 24 hour schedules, pay the same fare whether going ine or 100 stops. Eliminate one of these at a time and Boom! Problem solved.
- chiefalchemist 8y ago
  The article should have mentioned this, as well as why rider volume is down.
- em3rgent0rdr 8y ago
  Sorting that wikipedia table by recovery ratio, I see most of the profitable ones are in East Asia and distance based: Osaka (OMTB) 137%, Hong Kong MTR 124%, Osaka (Hankyu Railway) 123%, Tokyo Metro 119%, London Underground 107%, Singapore (SMRT) 101%, Taipei Metro 100%. Clearly it is possible to have profitable subways, so I don't think we should drop profitability as a goal.
  - lifthrasiir 8y ago
    The statistics are misleading. I can say a bit about Japanese subways; they generally have handful profitable lines (e.g. Midosuji line in Osaka Metro---previously known as OMTB---, or Ginza line in Tokyo Metro) and lots of non-profitable lines. For private subways like Hankyu, the codevelopment of subway lines and neighboring metropolitan area was crucial for their long-lasting profitability (in this sense, Hankyu is not a subway corporation). If we want profitability as a goal, we should just drop those non-profitable lines or subways in general, but of course that would be a public disaster.
conanbatt 8y ago
OTOH, if you let go any rationalization for its cost, then you get 2 billion dollar bills for bus stations that don't work. (SF transit center).
hkai 8y ago
I am not sure why you intend it to make a loss, even though I agree with you on benefits to the economy. Once a public transit system is convenient and is used by a large percentage of the population, let's say 30-90%, then it will surely be profitable except if it's grossly mismanaged. Incidental tip: buy stocks of Hong Kong public transit companies, they're doing amazing.
prostoalex 8y ago
> There seems to be an obsession in the west with making public transport pay for itself Not a crazy idea considering how some systems operate in the East - Tokyo, Osaka and Hong Kong systems not only pay for themselves, but churn out profits along the way. Singapore’s MRT is designed to operate at break-even. The trick is to allow the transportation authority to own and manage its own real estate. This way when a new station or line is built out, the sharp increase in land value is captured by leasing the space above it to a giant mall, office complex or a mixed-use megacomplex like Roppongi Hills. The US model seems to reward random real estate developers who just happened to own the land near the future station. It also seems to frown upon the idea of concessions or any commercial exploitation - for instance, San Jose or San Francisco Catrain stations receive more foot traffic than many commercial centers in the area, yet choose to wow their visitors with a mediocre coffee stand and a dirty bathroom.
- jabl 8y ago
  > The trick is to allow the transportation authority to own and manage its own real estate. Well, that seems like a pretty major subsidy. So if a new line or station is built, the government uses eminent domain (or equivalent) to buy the land, and gives it to the transport authority? I mean, it might be better in that it lets the transport authority operate without being dependent on government handouts that can vary wildly from year to year due to local politics. > The US model seems to reward random real estate developers who just happened to own the land near the future station. The government should apply some form of land value taxation to (partially) fix this. Would fix a lot of other problems too, but I digress.
  - notSupplied 8y ago
    If by subsidy, you're implying that the transit system is receiving freebies they don't deserve, then I'd have to disagree with you. Transportation hubs create far more value via their impact on nearby real estate values than from the fares they collect. Asia cities correctly capture the value created by public transit by having major retail hubs above or surrounding subway stations, all of which is paying rent to the transit authority. Even this is a generous compromise, because the benefit to real estate value really radiates outward to the entire walkable radius, it's just the immediate retail hub that could attribute most of it's value to the station. So if anything, the problem with the US is that public transit is just a massive economy handout to private landowners, leaving just the scraps (the fares) to the transit authority.
dnautics 8y ago
Public transport in Singapore is privatised (well less of it has been as of last year) and it's the cheapest, cleanest, and most reliable system in operation today.
henvic 8y ago
Except you are deadly wrong. Your interventionism ideas area probably thanks to a dead economist. How about seeing that once the Subway was private and ran well and it ended up the way it did thanks to state intervention trying to make the subways out of business and then buying it out?
briandear 8y ago
I agree with you in principle, but in practice, attempting to break even puts some accountability on the system. If it’s a money pit, then taxpayers are getting cheated. I strongly support national defense, but if you want an example of a public good that is a money pit, that’s a good example. A P/L statement on public transport helps prevent endless spending without accountability.
vackosar 8y ago
Why it drives the economy compared to private trasport?
- adrianN 8y ago
  Because roads don't have the capacity to replace the subway system. A subway can move an order of magnitude more people than a road.
Tsubasachan 8y ago
NYC wouldn't last a week without its subway and light rail. Everyone uses it, except maybe for the billionaires who have private helicopters. Its critical infrastructure just as sewage system and powerlines.
countryqt30 8y ago
I think this statement is simply wrong. Why? If you ARE doing business and need transportation, why can't you pay for it? If your expected value of a deal is higher than the fare price, then you should drive. Otherwise not :). "There seems to be an obsession in the west" - no, but there seems to be one in the east, where most public transport actually ARE profitable. Your statement has the problem that you can never prove it, "if we do X, it will create soooo much wealth" -- uh, and how much? That's an important question if you want to decide to "invest" either 1B or 100B into a new railway or road system. And FWIW: I know VERY few businessmen who use public transport as their primary way of transport (it's usually cab or UBER, or plane), but that might be biased.
tokyodude 8y ago
Japan is doing pretty well I believe because they privatized the transportation system and set up the incentives so the better the transportation does the more profit the transportation company makes. The Tokyu Corporation (one of the 10 or so companies running trains in Tokyo) is currently building several 20 to 40 story buildings in Shibuya, one of which Google Japan will move into next September. They make money renting the building all of which are next to their station
- slx26 8y ago
  Can you (or anyone else who knows and reads this) explain a bit more about those incentives?

anigbrowl 8y ago

Right? The economics of fare enforcement are a great illustration of this. It's probably more efficient to just abolish fare collection altogether.

yesenadam 8y ago
I wrote a letter to the Sydney Morning herald about 15 years ago saying, OK, starting today, let's make all public transportation free, by not paying for it anymore. All it takes is everyone acting together. They didn't publish my letter. I really shouldn't have given up so easily - I still think it's a good idea. Just need to set a date and get everyone talking about it.
mrsuprawsm 8y ago
This been attempted in quite a few places: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/oct/15/i-leave-the-car-at-home-how-free-buses-are-revolutionising-one-french-city https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/oct/15/i-leave-the-c... > 'in 2017 there were 99 fare-free public transport networks around the world: 57 in Europe, 27 in North America, 11 in South America, 3 in China and one in Australia. Many are smaller than Dunkirk and offer free transit limited to certain times, routes and people.'

jkaplowitz 8y ago

The ideas you're saying are quite common in the West, as you say, but that's not the attitude in NYC. Everyone realizes it's worth funding and fixing. The disputes are about the who, what, how, and paid by whom.

InitialLastName 8y ago
The issue is really that the MTA is funded and controlled by the State of New York, while it predominantly serves the City of New York. Since the population (especially the voting population) of the city is <0.5 of the state population, but the city is an outsized chunk of the state's total economy, the state uses funding of the transit system as a weapon to get the city to acquiesce to other demands. Hence why the NYC mayor is so intent on funding worthless streetcars and ferries; they let him get out from under the thumb of the state.
- eric_h 8y ago
  > Hence why the NYC mayor is so intent on funding worthless streetcars and ferries I'm assuming you're using the "worthless" adjective only for the streetcars - I use the NYC Ferry regularly (a stop opened near my apt last year) and it's way better than the subway. I have to walk a bit further on the other side, but it's still way more comfortable.
  - deminature 8y ago
    Streetcars aren't even necessarily worthless. They're called trams in Australia and Sydney has recently rolled out a network after seeing how heavily utilized they are in Melbourne, and how convenient they are for short-distance travel. Pretty much everyone who works in the city has a tram trip somewhere in their commute. Provided the tracks run past places people need to go, there's no reason they need to be worthless.
    - umichguy 8y ago
      Melbourne trams are awesome! Sure, they're not everywhere or go everywhere but for near the city center and some main routes they make so much sense.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

closetohome 8y ago

Absolutely -- and you can see this even in the article. They talk about raising fares and cutting service, with no acknowledgement that their primary source of income shouldn't be fares, and their primary budget cuts shouldn't come from reduced service. This article from last year does a much better job of covering how things have gotten to the state they're in - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-system-failure-delays.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-...

martinald 8y ago
NYC subway fares are insanely cheap compared to the rest of the (developed) world. $2.75 single for any distance is incredibly low. In London that same fare in rush hour would be anywhere between $4 and $15+ depending on the length of the journey (and NYC has much higher GDP per capita than London, plus the £ is on its arse at the moment). Even Berlin is marginally more expensive, in a much smaller & less economically prosperous city. Keep in mind also that if you don't raise fares you are effectively cutting them because of inflation.
- avip 8y ago
  2.30$ CAD in Vancouver for 1.5h, you can easily cross the entire "city" on that price-tag.
  - 8note 8y ago
    Why is city in quotes?
    - andrewshadura 8y ago
      I guess that's because the greater Vancouver area is made up of multiple localities officially designated as cities, even though in many cases there are no visible gaps between them anywhere other than on the map. The transport system is divided in zones, so travelling to, say, Coquitlam will cost you twice as much as travelling within the Vancouver downtown.

tikhonj 8y ago

It's also interesting how people don't see public roads in the same way—people don't expect roads to cover their own expenses directly, expect free parking as a human right and bridle at toll roads or gasoline taxes. People need to see public transport as "roads that don't need cars".

r00fus 8y ago
One feeds into the petroleum economy and one doesn't. Guess which one is "preferred"?
- Zhenya 8y ago
  The one that provides people (the illusion of) liberty through movement.
  - dwaltrip 8y ago
    Cars and roads have plenty of problems, sure, but I have no idea what you mean by this "illusion of freedom".
    - TheSoftwareGuy 8y ago
      He's likely referring to how (some) people enjoy driving because of the sense of freedom & control it gives them. But he is asserting that this is just an illusion. Honestly, I feel the same way, since most time I spend driving I spend sitting in traffic or something.
      - Zhenya 8y ago
        That's right (I'm the OP) - I love driving and work in the auto industry. The biggest pitch of the car(look at the commercials) is that your car defines you, and provides you a lifestyle and freedom. However, there really is an element of freedom. You can drive where you want when you want. It's just that the average person sits in bumper to bumper traffic.

Brakenshire 8y ago

It’s not bad for the service to fund itself in ongoing costs, Transport for London is self-sufficient for instance, as long as the money goes back into the service. That’s a good discipline to maintain an efficient service. But agree that initial capital investments should be thought about in the way you’re discussing.

pzone 8y ago

In Tokyo, the rail transit system (including subways) is operated by a network of private companies. These train operators make a net profit from fares and other revenues, and the system is generally well liked by its customers. Even if the idea of privatization makes you cringe, the idea that public transit is inevitably a money pit or loss leader is misguided. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/10/why-tokyos-privately-owned-rail-systems-work-so-well/389/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/10/why-tokyos-pr...

rayiner 8y ago
The key difference with Tokyo probably isn't privatization, but that the rail operators own the land around the stations, so often get to charge both ends of each trip: the rider and the business the rider travels to.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  Sounds like a smart policy: the railway operator is pressured to serve areas where there is actually demand for the service, thus avoiding wasteful spending building non-performing lines, and is pressured to provide quality services to keep real estate prices up.
bobthepanda 8y ago
It's worth noting that they got there because at the time of development, the rail companies were able to buy up the surrounding land and develop that. They reinvested their real estate profits into more rail and more real estate, creating a virtuous cycle. (Hong Kong, one of the only other profitable systems, did something similar by having the government effectively transfer land for free initially.) American rail systems largely didn't develop around their stations, and if they bothered to develop around their stations they sold the land after construction and that was it. For them to do so today would require billions, if not tens of billions of dollars to provide fair compensation for eminent domain for land and property around stations. And that's before the legal costs to fight all the resulting litigation, if they even were allowed to do it.

rayiner 8y ago

Nobody expects the NYC subway to "break even or even turn a profit." The subway historically recovers less than 50% of its operating expenditures from fares, compared to 70% for Berlin, 88% for Amsterdam, and over 100% in Tokyo, Taipei, Hong Kong, and Singapore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio. MTA is broke because it costs several times as much for MTA to do anything compared to its counterparts in other Europe: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-....

o0-0o 8y ago
Fare jumpers, bums, filth, lax schedules, ignorant employees, 24 hour schedules, pay the same fare whether going ine or 100 stops. Eliminate one of these at a time and Boom! Problem solved.
chiefalchemist 8y ago
The article should have mentioned this, as well as why rider volume is down.
em3rgent0rdr 8y ago
Sorting that wikipedia table by recovery ratio, I see most of the profitable ones are in East Asia and distance based: Osaka (OMTB) 137%, Hong Kong MTR 124%, Osaka (Hankyu Railway) 123%, Tokyo Metro 119%, London Underground 107%, Singapore (SMRT) 101%, Taipei Metro 100%. Clearly it is possible to have profitable subways, so I don't think we should drop profitability as a goal.
- lifthrasiir 8y ago
  The statistics are misleading. I can say a bit about Japanese subways; they generally have handful profitable lines (e.g. Midosuji line in Osaka Metro---previously known as OMTB---, or Ginza line in Tokyo Metro) and lots of non-profitable lines. For private subways like Hankyu, the codevelopment of subway lines and neighboring metropolitan area was crucial for their long-lasting profitability (in this sense, Hankyu is not a subway corporation). If we want profitability as a goal, we should just drop those non-profitable lines or subways in general, but of course that would be a public disaster.

conanbatt 8y ago

OTOH, if you let go any rationalization for its cost, then you get 2 billion dollar bills for bus stations that don't work. (SF transit center).

hkai 8y ago

I am not sure why you intend it to make a loss, even though I agree with you on benefits to the economy. Once a public transit system is convenient and is used by a large percentage of the population, let's say 30-90%, then it will surely be profitable except if it's grossly mismanaged. Incidental tip: buy stocks of Hong Kong public transit companies, they're doing amazing.

prostoalex 8y ago

> There seems to be an obsession in the west with making public transport pay for itself Not a crazy idea considering how some systems operate in the East - Tokyo, Osaka and Hong Kong systems not only pay for themselves, but churn out profits along the way. Singapore’s MRT is designed to operate at break-even. The trick is to allow the transportation authority to own and manage its own real estate. This way when a new station or line is built out, the sharp increase in land value is captured by leasing the space above it to a giant mall, office complex or a mixed-use megacomplex like Roppongi Hills. The US model seems to reward random real estate developers who just happened to own the land near the future station. It also seems to frown upon the idea of concessions or any commercial exploitation - for instance, San Jose or San Francisco Catrain stations receive more foot traffic than many commercial centers in the area, yet choose to wow their visitors with a mediocre coffee stand and a dirty bathroom.

jabl 8y ago
> The trick is to allow the transportation authority to own and manage its own real estate. Well, that seems like a pretty major subsidy. So if a new line or station is built, the government uses eminent domain (or equivalent) to buy the land, and gives it to the transport authority? I mean, it might be better in that it lets the transport authority operate without being dependent on government handouts that can vary wildly from year to year due to local politics. > The US model seems to reward random real estate developers who just happened to own the land near the future station. The government should apply some form of land value taxation to (partially) fix this. Would fix a lot of other problems too, but I digress.
- notSupplied 8y ago
  If by subsidy, you're implying that the transit system is receiving freebies they don't deserve, then I'd have to disagree with you. Transportation hubs create far more value via their impact on nearby real estate values than from the fares they collect. Asia cities correctly capture the value created by public transit by having major retail hubs above or surrounding subway stations, all of which is paying rent to the transit authority. Even this is a generous compromise, because the benefit to real estate value really radiates outward to the entire walkable radius, it's just the immediate retail hub that could attribute most of it's value to the station. So if anything, the problem with the US is that public transit is just a massive economy handout to private landowners, leaving just the scraps (the fares) to the transit authority.

dnautics 8y ago

Public transport in Singapore is privatised (well less of it has been as of last year) and it's the cheapest, cleanest, and most reliable system in operation today.

henvic 8y ago

Except you are deadly wrong. Your interventionism ideas area probably thanks to a dead economist. How about seeing that once the Subway was private and ran well and it ended up the way it did thanks to state intervention trying to make the subways out of business and then buying it out?

briandear 8y ago

I agree with you in principle, but in practice, attempting to break even puts some accountability on the system. If it’s a money pit, then taxpayers are getting cheated. I strongly support national defense, but if you want an example of a public good that is a money pit, that’s a good example. A P/L statement on public transport helps prevent endless spending without accountability.

vackosar 8y ago

Why it drives the economy compared to private trasport?

adrianN 8y ago
Because roads don't have the capacity to replace the subway system. A subway can move an order of magnitude more people than a road.

Tsubasachan 8y ago

NYC wouldn't last a week without its subway and light rail. Everyone uses it, except maybe for the billionaires who have private helicopters. Its critical infrastructure just as sewage system and powerlines.

countryqt30 8y ago

I think this statement is simply wrong. Why? If you ARE doing business and need transportation, why can't you pay for it? If your expected value of a deal is higher than the fare price, then you should drive. Otherwise not :). "There seems to be an obsession in the west" - no, but there seems to be one in the east, where most public transport actually ARE profitable. Your statement has the problem that you can never prove it, "if we do X, it will create soooo much wealth" -- uh, and how much? That's an important question if you want to decide to "invest" either 1B or 100B into a new railway or road system. And FWIW: I know VERY few businessmen who use public transport as their primary way of transport (it's usually cab or UBER, or plane), but that might be biased.

tokyodude 8y ago

Japan is doing pretty well I believe because they privatized the transportation system and set up the incentives so the better the transportation does the more profit the transportation company makes. The Tokyu Corporation (one of the 10 or so companies running trains in Tokyo) is currently building several 20 to 40 story buildings in Shibuya, one of which Google Japan will move into next September. They make money renting the building all of which are next to their station

slx26 8y ago
Can you (or anyone else who knows and reads this) explain a bit more about those incentives?