3 ms·

> 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, infrast

by 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.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    I’m using the political/economic meaning of “conservative.” Requiring the subway to run at an operating profit (London) is a more politically conservative model than treating it as a public service that is heavily-subsidized to keep ticket prices low (New York). Other models typical in Europe are even more conservative. Stockholm’s subway system is operated and maintained by private companies, including MTR (the Hong Kong transit operator). France is trying to privatize the Paris airport and SNCF, the French rail operator. Deutsche Bahn, the German rail operator, is owned by the German government, but operated as a for-profit corporation rather than a government agency. It has operations in numerous other countries, and its CEO is paid over 1.5 million euro per year (4x as much as Amtrak’s CEO). Indeed, the EU had a directive encouraging deregulation of rail: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_European_Railway_Directive_2012 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_European_Railway_Dire.... It encourages separating the infrastructure from the operating companies, and opening the operations to international competition. If we had that in the US, a private company in Omaha could bid to operate commuter rail service in New York or Chicago. That’s a very politically conservative (neoliberal) approach.
    - danans 7y ago
      > Requiring the subway to run at an operating profit (London) is a more politically conservative model than treating it as a public service that is heavily-subsidized to keep ticket prices low (New York). Agreed, but raising ticket prices to ensure that a transit system runs a profit requires that the alternatives (driving, taxi, uber) are sufficiently expensive by pricing in their externalities. It also requires that your average transit rider have enough income, and that the transit system be clean and comprehensive, which requires investment. You can't build a great transit system by starving it of revenue.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        > It also requires that your average transit rider have enough income, London incomes are substantially lower than New York incomes, while transit fares in London are substantially higher. > and that the transit system be clean and comprehensive, which requires investment. London’s and New York’s subways have almost identical track mileage in cities that are similar in population and density. London’s system is expanding more now, but again that’s due to more liberal policies in New York. The US has some of the strongest public sector unions in the world, which drives up capital costs. It also has stringent environmental review and public participation laws for transit projects, which again drives up capital costs. These are all “liberal” policies. As to cleanliness, cleaning is an operating cost, and that’s an example of something that the US does in a “liberal” way (cleaning staff typically are government employees), while Europe often does in a “conservative” way. In the case of London, cleaning is an operating cost Transport for London is required to pay for through ticket revenue, while in New York the government covers half the cost. And in Stockholm, cleaning, along with most other operations, is done by private companies. > You can't build a great transit system by starving it of revenue. New York spends twice as much per passenger mile as London in operating costs, and several times as much for equivalent new infrastructure. In no way is New York’s system starved of revenue. Same for DC, Chicago, Boston, etc. None of these systems are “starved for revenue.”

by danans 7y ago

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.
- rayiner 7y ago
  I’m using the political/economic meaning of “conservative.” Requiring the subway to run at an operating profit (London) is a more politically conservative model than treating it as a public service that is heavily-subsidized to keep ticket prices low (New York). Other models typical in Europe are even more conservative. Stockholm’s subway system is operated and maintained by private companies, including MTR (the Hong Kong transit operator). France is trying to privatize the Paris airport and SNCF, the French rail operator. Deutsche Bahn, the German rail operator, is owned by the German government, but operated as a for-profit corporation rather than a government agency. It has operations in numerous other countries, and its CEO is paid over 1.5 million euro per year (4x as much as Amtrak’s CEO). Indeed, the EU had a directive encouraging deregulation of rail: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_European_Railway_Directive_2012 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_European_Railway_Dire.... It encourages separating the infrastructure from the operating companies, and opening the operations to international competition. If we had that in the US, a private company in Omaha could bid to operate commuter rail service in New York or Chicago. That’s a very politically conservative (neoliberal) approach.
  - danans 7y ago
    > Requiring the subway to run at an operating profit (London) is a more politically conservative model than treating it as a public service that is heavily-subsidized to keep ticket prices low (New York). Agreed, but raising ticket prices to ensure that a transit system runs a profit requires that the alternatives (driving, taxi, uber) are sufficiently expensive by pricing in their externalities. It also requires that your average transit rider have enough income, and that the transit system be clean and comprehensive, which requires investment. You can't build a great transit system by starving it of revenue.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      > It also requires that your average transit rider have enough income, London incomes are substantially lower than New York incomes, while transit fares in London are substantially higher. > and that the transit system be clean and comprehensive, which requires investment. London’s and New York’s subways have almost identical track mileage in cities that are similar in population and density. London’s system is expanding more now, but again that’s due to more liberal policies in New York. The US has some of the strongest public sector unions in the world, which drives up capital costs. It also has stringent environmental review and public participation laws for transit projects, which again drives up capital costs. These are all “liberal” policies. As to cleanliness, cleaning is an operating cost, and that’s an example of something that the US does in a “liberal” way (cleaning staff typically are government employees), while Europe often does in a “conservative” way. In the case of London, cleaning is an operating cost Transport for London is required to pay for through ticket revenue, while in New York the government covers half the cost. And in Stockholm, cleaning, along with most other operations, is done by private companies. > You can't build a great transit system by starving it of revenue. New York spends twice as much per passenger mile as London in operating costs, and several times as much for equivalent new infrastructure. In no way is New York’s system starved of revenue. Same for DC, Chicago, Boston, etc. None of these systems are “starved for revenue.”