3 ms·

The MTA and Port Authority are the best funded systems _in the world_. The problem is that they waste money profligately. What takes other cities millions of

The MTA and Port Authority are the best funded systems _in the world_. The problem is that they waste money profligately. What takes other cities millions of dollars and tens of weeks takes New York billions and decades. The reason no one wishes to add billions to the MTA’s already large capital budget is that 99% of the money disappears into a black hole

onlyrealcuzzo 8y ago
That's because only 50% of the money goes towards things you expect it to go toward: labor costs, operations, and maintenance. The other 50% goes to unfunded pensions, debt service, and health care (mostly unfunded). http://interactive.nydailynews.com/project/mta-spending/ http://interactive.nydailynews.com/project/mta-spending/
- naravara 8y ago
  Man, it's almost like we could suddenly afford to do a lot of big projects if we just nationalized healthcare and pensions so it wouldn't have to be factored into labor costs.
  - setr 8y ago
    The cost still exists — you’re just moving it. Instead of factoring it into the labor cost and being part of the money allocating to the particular job, you’d just see lower allocation, and have the same problem. The only real difference would be that the comparison in funding/cost between equivalent US and EU work would be more fair (also achieved by de-nationalizing healthcare and pensions in the EU). Unless of course you’re also suggesting that nationalization would reduce global costs, but nothing about this particular thread supports/suggests that
    - naravara 8y ago
      >Instead of factoring it into the labor cost and being part of the money allocating to the particular job, you’d just see lower allocation, and have the same problem. Why would you have the same problem? The project gets cheaper because the labor to do it (and administrative overhead to make sure the benefits are given) are cheaper. In a world where dollar values and sticker shock aren't significant determinants of transit policy your point might make sense, but we don't live in that world. Also, transit funds are usually raised locally while nationalized social services are funded nationally. So the costs would actually fall on different entities and a broader tax-base if you did it this way.
    - magduf 8y ago
      Not true. Healthcare service costs in other industrialized countries are much lower than the US, because of their better systems. So, for instance, if you need hip replacement surgery and you have to pay for it out-of-pocket, it'll cost you a small fraction if you get it done in Belgium than in the US.
      - setr 8y ago
        As always, comparing on consumer medical costs is difficult, especially because an (insured) person in the US doesn’t pay anything close to sticker price, and neither does the insurance company. Im not sure what the real cost per operation comes out to be, if you’ve got anything regarding that
xster 8y ago
Are there documentations for MTA and Port Authority being the best funded systems in the world?

onlyrealcuzzo 8y ago

That's because only 50% of the money goes towards things you expect it to go toward: labor costs, operations, and maintenance. The other 50% goes to unfunded pensions, debt service, and health care (mostly unfunded). http://interactive.nydailynews.com/project/mta-spending/ http://interactive.nydailynews.com/project/mta-spending/

naravara 8y ago
Man, it's almost like we could suddenly afford to do a lot of big projects if we just nationalized healthcare and pensions so it wouldn't have to be factored into labor costs.
- setr 8y ago
  The cost still exists — you’re just moving it. Instead of factoring it into the labor cost and being part of the money allocating to the particular job, you’d just see lower allocation, and have the same problem. The only real difference would be that the comparison in funding/cost between equivalent US and EU work would be more fair (also achieved by de-nationalizing healthcare and pensions in the EU). Unless of course you’re also suggesting that nationalization would reduce global costs, but nothing about this particular thread supports/suggests that
  - naravara 8y ago
    >Instead of factoring it into the labor cost and being part of the money allocating to the particular job, you’d just see lower allocation, and have the same problem. Why would you have the same problem? The project gets cheaper because the labor to do it (and administrative overhead to make sure the benefits are given) are cheaper. In a world where dollar values and sticker shock aren't significant determinants of transit policy your point might make sense, but we don't live in that world. Also, transit funds are usually raised locally while nationalized social services are funded nationally. So the costs would actually fall on different entities and a broader tax-base if you did it this way.
  - magduf 8y ago
    Not true. Healthcare service costs in other industrialized countries are much lower than the US, because of their better systems. So, for instance, if you need hip replacement surgery and you have to pay for it out-of-pocket, it'll cost you a small fraction if you get it done in Belgium than in the US.
    - setr 8y ago
      As always, comparing on consumer medical costs is difficult, especially because an (insured) person in the US doesn’t pay anything close to sticker price, and neither does the insurance company. Im not sure what the real cost per operation comes out to be, if you’ve got anything regarding that

xster 8y ago

Are there documentations for MTA and Port Authority being the best funded systems in the world?