It seems like an obviously poor decision to just be lazy, when they could theoretically raise rates to cover these maintenance costs. What information are we m

It seems like an obviously poor decision to just be lazy, when they could theoretically raise rates to cover these maintenance costs. What information are we missing that could make sense of the decision? I know that rate hikes are heavily protested by citizens, so maybe there's some sort of political infeasibility? That would certainly be a mark against a gov't run critical service -- maybe it's really hard (near impossible) to raise rates to cover required maintenance.