4 ms·

No, the idea is that you actually need to properly fund and train the people overseeing the projects. Fiscal conservatives have been understaffing executive off

No, the idea is that you actually need to properly fund and train the people overseeing the projects. Fiscal conservatives have been understaffing executive offices for years and then point at them when they fail. The DMV wouldn't suck if they just gave a bit more money and hired more people, but it will suck forever because everyone thinks it just sucks because Lol government sucks.

enraged_camel 7y ago
Exactly. Underfunding agencies and programs, then blaming them when they inevitably fail and using that failure as an argument to push for privatization has been the Republican modus operandi for several decades now.
rayiner 7y ago
The US spends more per unit of service almost every public sector program than European countries. Overall, our non-military government spending per person is actually slightly more than Canada’s. At the local level, it costs NYC twice as much per passenger mile to operate almost an identical subway system to London’s. Moreover, by your logic, infrastructure would be better in liberal cities and states. But it’s not. Baltimore hasn’t had a republican mayor since 1967. The city council hasn’t had a republican since 1942. Where can I find a republican to blame for the fact that it’s infrastructure is a disaster? San Francisco hasn’t had a republican mayor since 1964, has just a single republican in city-wide elected office, and the entire Bay Area currently has no republican representatives in either the state legislature or the Congress. DC has never had a republican mayor. These places should have great public services, right? If not transit (where Democrats sometimes have to share power with republicans at the state level) but schools, local public services, etc., should be fantastic and well funded, right?
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  >Moreover, by your logic, infrastructure would be better in liberal cities and states. But it’s not. What metric are you using to make this claim? I don’t even know of any non liberal cities. And whatever their faults may be, liberal cities and states are more desirable to live in or near, based on price data.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Rich people tend to congregate in blue cities and states, but on the whole they suffer from massive domestic out-migration (more residents leaving for other states than residents of other states coming there). New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Illinois are all losing large numbers of residents to other states: https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5a57cab528eecc1d008b4616-1136-852.png https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5a57cab528eecc1d008b4.... > I don’t even know of any non liberal cities. Phoenix, Arizona, the fastest growing large city in the U.S. As to states, the 10 most popular governors currently are all republicans, while 7 of the 10 least popular are democrats: https://freebeacon.com/politics/10-most-popular-governors-in-country-are-republicans https://freebeacon.com/politics/10-most-popular-governors-in.... This is not really a broad political point, but a very narrow response to the idea that infrastructure and public services suck in the U.S. "because republicans." When you live in a city like New York, DC, or SF, where 80% of people vote for the democratic candidate year-after-year, you can't really blame Reagan for the fact that the schools suck, the transit is falling apart, etc.
    - acollins1331 7y ago
      Sure you can, they need federal aid and aren't getting it. A city can't be by itself like some type of city state, a modern city needs huge federal investments. Which brings back the argument "because Republicans". Try again.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        Why do cities need federal aid to pay for purely local services like schools, subways, buses, water/sewer, etc? Maybe you can blame republicans for the lack of high speed rail between New York and DC, but how do you blame them for the terrible schools in those cities, the awful experience of dealing with government agencies, etc? Also, it’s not clear to me that transit projects in other countries receive dramatically more national funding. The French National government is paying for only 20% of Paris’s new regional transit extension: https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/05/27/paris-region-moves-ahead-with-125-miles-of-new-metro-lines https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/05/27/paris-region-.... That’s consistent with what similar projects in the US receive. (For example, the next phase of the Second Avenue subway is eligible for up to $2 billion from federal sources of a $6 billion total cost. And the federal government is paying $900 million of the $6 billion purple line in Maryland.) More important, it’s a small enough percentage of the overall budget that federal republicans withholding federal support shouldn’t make or break projects.
- danans 7y ago
  > At the local level, it costs NYC twice as much per passenger mile to operate almost an identical subway system to London’s. > Moreover, by your logic, infrastructure would be better in liberal cities and states. But it’s not. NYC and London, both liberal cities, the latter arguably more liberal as regards public transit funding, yet NYC costs twice as much per passenger mile of subway. Seems like being a liberal city doesn't really explain the difference.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    What makes you think London is more liberal? Most of Europe is more conservative in many respects than the U.S. in terms of transit funding. For example, for the most part trains in the U.K. and continental Europe are operated by private companies that are expected to cover their operational costs. (Though the government often covers capital costs.) By contrast, transit in the U.S. universally runs at a significant operating loss. Both London and New York, for example, cover capital costs for their subway. But the Tube runs at a slight operating profit, while the NYC Subway only recovers about half of its operating costs. (Tube fare, for example, starts at higher than the NYC subway fare, and for longer distances is almost three times as much.)
    - danans 7y ago
      > What makes you think London is more liberal? Most of Europe is more conservative in many respects than the U.S. in terms of transit funding. Are you using the political meaning of "liberal" or the financial meaning, "not very worried about overspending"? I mean liberal in the political sense of government being ultimately responsible for the execution and success of infrastructure projects. Such a scenario could be financially conservative in the sense of providing transit service on budget, which London appears to do. Or it could be inefficient (or financially "liberal") like the examples we've discussed. I think the real difference is that in places like London, well off people take transit more than is typical in the United States (due to a history of class and race coding around transit in the US), so there is more political incentive in London to ensure that the government agencies that build efficient, comprehensive, and effective transit. Similar cultural priorities and even better transit systems can be found in Germany and other parts of Europe. Or to put it simply, in London, bankers take the Tube. The same kind of people in the US usually drive cars, because the mass transit option is underinvested and hence slower, less maintained, and used mostly by poorer people. This is the case for many municipal bus agencies in the US.

enraged_camel 7y ago

Exactly. Underfunding agencies and programs, then blaming them when they inevitably fail and using that failure as an argument to push for privatization has been the Republican modus operandi for several decades now.

rayiner 7y ago

The US spends more per unit of service almost every public sector program than European countries. Overall, our non-military government spending per person is actually slightly more than Canada’s. At the local level, it costs NYC twice as much per passenger mile to operate almost an identical subway system to London’s. Moreover, by your logic, infrastructure would be better in liberal cities and states. But it’s not. Baltimore hasn’t had a republican mayor since 1967. The city council hasn’t had a republican since 1942. Where can I find a republican to blame for the fact that it’s infrastructure is a disaster? San Francisco hasn’t had a republican mayor since 1964, has just a single republican in city-wide elected office, and the entire Bay Area currently has no republican representatives in either the state legislature or the Congress. DC has never had a republican mayor. These places should have great public services, right? If not transit (where Democrats sometimes have to share power with republicans at the state level) but schools, local public services, etc., should be fantastic and well funded, right?

lotsofpulp 7y ago
>Moreover, by your logic, infrastructure would be better in liberal cities and states. But it’s not. What metric are you using to make this claim? I don’t even know of any non liberal cities. And whatever their faults may be, liberal cities and states are more desirable to live in or near, based on price data.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Rich people tend to congregate in blue cities and states, but on the whole they suffer from massive domestic out-migration (more residents leaving for other states than residents of other states coming there). New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Illinois are all losing large numbers of residents to other states: https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5a57cab528eecc1d008b4616-1136-852.png https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5a57cab528eecc1d008b4.... > I don’t even know of any non liberal cities. Phoenix, Arizona, the fastest growing large city in the U.S. As to states, the 10 most popular governors currently are all republicans, while 7 of the 10 least popular are democrats: https://freebeacon.com/politics/10-most-popular-governors-in-country-are-republicans https://freebeacon.com/politics/10-most-popular-governors-in.... This is not really a broad political point, but a very narrow response to the idea that infrastructure and public services suck in the U.S. "because republicans." When you live in a city like New York, DC, or SF, where 80% of people vote for the democratic candidate year-after-year, you can't really blame Reagan for the fact that the schools suck, the transit is falling apart, etc.
  - acollins1331 7y ago
    Sure you can, they need federal aid and aren't getting it. A city can't be by itself like some type of city state, a modern city needs huge federal investments. Which brings back the argument "because Republicans". Try again.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      Why do cities need federal aid to pay for purely local services like schools, subways, buses, water/sewer, etc? Maybe you can blame republicans for the lack of high speed rail between New York and DC, but how do you blame them for the terrible schools in those cities, the awful experience of dealing with government agencies, etc? Also, it’s not clear to me that transit projects in other countries receive dramatically more national funding. The French National government is paying for only 20% of Paris’s new regional transit extension: https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/05/27/paris-region-moves-ahead-with-125-miles-of-new-metro-lines https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/05/27/paris-region-.... That’s consistent with what similar projects in the US receive. (For example, the next phase of the Second Avenue subway is eligible for up to $2 billion from federal sources of a $6 billion total cost. And the federal government is paying $900 million of the $6 billion purple line in Maryland.) More important, it’s a small enough percentage of the overall budget that federal republicans withholding federal support shouldn’t make or break projects.
danans 7y ago
> At the local level, it costs NYC twice as much per passenger mile to operate almost an identical subway system to London’s. > Moreover, by your logic, infrastructure would be better in liberal cities and states. But it’s not. NYC and London, both liberal cities, the latter arguably more liberal as regards public transit funding, yet NYC costs twice as much per passenger mile of subway. Seems like being a liberal city doesn't really explain the difference.
- rayiner 7y ago
  What makes you think London is more liberal? Most of Europe is more conservative in many respects than the U.S. in terms of transit funding. For example, for the most part trains in the U.K. and continental Europe are operated by private companies that are expected to cover their operational costs. (Though the government often covers capital costs.) By contrast, transit in the U.S. universally runs at a significant operating loss. Both London and New York, for example, cover capital costs for their subway. But the Tube runs at a slight operating profit, while the NYC Subway only recovers about half of its operating costs. (Tube fare, for example, starts at higher than the NYC subway fare, and for longer distances is almost three times as much.)
  - danans 7y ago
    > What makes you think London is more liberal? Most of Europe is more conservative in many respects than the U.S. in terms of transit funding. Are you using the political meaning of "liberal" or the financial meaning, "not very worried about overspending"? I mean liberal in the political sense of government being ultimately responsible for the execution and success of infrastructure projects. Such a scenario could be financially conservative in the sense of providing transit service on budget, which London appears to do. Or it could be inefficient (or financially "liberal") like the examples we've discussed. I think the real difference is that in places like London, well off people take transit more than is typical in the United States (due to a history of class and race coding around transit in the US), so there is more political incentive in London to ensure that the government agencies that build efficient, comprehensive, and effective transit. Similar cultural priorities and even better transit systems can be found in Germany and other parts of Europe. Or to put it simply, in London, bankers take the Tube. The same kind of people in the US usually drive cars, because the mass transit option is underinvested and hence slower, less maintained, and used mostly by poorer people. This is the case for many municipal bus agencies in the US.