7 ms·

A single car breaking down on a Bay Area toll bridge can bring the entire region to a stand-still. So the region's transportation authority runs a free tow serv

A single car breaking down on a Bay Area toll bridge can bring the entire region to a stand-still. So the region's transportation authority runs a free tow service to keep bridges clear. It works very well.

clarkmoody 6y ago
Alternatively, the bridge operator could offer a refund of the tolls if the transit of the bridge exceeds a contractually-guaranteed time. The profit motive would ensure adequate towing capabilities are allocated for the bridge. If towing is controlled by the political apparatus, then perhaps they don't send the tow trucks if a vehicle is blocking the bridge to make a political statement.
- 9000 6y ago
  Sure, the bridge operator could do that, but why? Bridges don't operate as efficient markets with heavy competition, instead they tend to act as regional monopolies. If you don't cross this bridge, you usually have to drive an hour or more out of your way. This market position of the bridge operator gives them outsize leverage over their customers, and so there is no incentive for them to compete on things like price or low traffic congestion, because who are they competing with? So, I'm not sure a "profit motive" is really the solution here. Yes, the bridge operator could make that contractual offer and add towing infrastructure out of the goodness of their heart, but there's no incentive to doing so. A decent local government does have that incentive (as they are responsible to the commuters as voters), so they offer that service. You could have regulation that forces the bridge operator to provide this service instead of the government, but is that really less government intervention?
- wtallis 6y ago
  > The profit motive would ensure adequate towing capabilities are allocated for the bridge. You need to spell out exactly how you think that would work. Because the only "profit motive" I'm seeing is that the bridge operator would want to avoid losing money on refunding tolls, and would be incentivized to provide towing services. But isn't that bridge operator exactly the same government transportation authority that you are proposing doesn't need to be involved in providing towing services? Or are you proposing that the day to day maintenance and operations of a piece of critical infrastructure should be privatized, and then subject to provisions that ensure it's a risky/bad investment?
  - clarkmoody 6y ago
    (spending more karma bringing libertarian ideas into a HN thread on infrastructure, but here goes) The point is that the bridge makes sure it has towing capabilities on standby for the fastest turnaround possible, since the operators of the bridge only care about the bridge. If a city government has a standing contract with some towing company, they probably use it for all sorts of things, so you wouldn't have that immediate standby capacity. I don't like the work "privatized." Instead, this would be a bridge built by entrepreneurs and operated as a business.
    - wtallis 6y ago
      > I don't like the work "privatized." Too bad. The meaning fits. It's unrealistic to propose that a new bridge would be built by private money. There's plenty of private investment money floating around in the Bay Area, and it hasn't come close to happening yet. And you have completely failed to respond to the concern that your proposed toll-refunding mandate would make a privately-operated bridge an even less viable investment than the non-starter it evidently already is. You're just dogmatically asserting that the free market will always provide, when it looks pretty clear that the free market would just say "no thanks".
- mcguire 6y ago
  On the one hand... "Alternatively, the bridge operator could be legally mandated to offer a refund of the tolls if the transit of the bridge exceeds a contractually-guaranteed time." I know it offends the libertarian sensibilities, but there's no reason for the operator to voluntarily do that. On the other hand... The Fort Lee lane closure thing. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/nyregion/george-washington-bridge-scandal-what-you-need-to-know.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/nyregion/george-washingto...)
jariel 6y ago
I don't think anyone even read what I actually wrote. As to your example I literally pointed out 'single points of access' (i.e. the GG bridge) as an cute concern wherein regulation, special interventions need to be made. That there are some places wherein intervention needs to be made, doesn't in any way help the argument that the broader case holds - your example does not help support the notion that 'tow trucks' in general should be socialized. (And FYI I think the 'market oriented solution' to bridge clearing probably won't work - but there may be other, smarter solutions such as 'more bridges' etc.) The notion of 'tow truck socialization' - while interesting fodder for reddit-ish discussion (ideas are always good) - is in practice, completely ridiculous. It's probably one a good example of things that should be the furthest from socialization. The 'pro socialization' knee-jerk responders chose a really ugly argument to die on, notably there's an absence of any reasonable arguments for how that would even make sense, other than in the OP 'if the government did it, it would be better!' - which is not an argument. As a matter of pragmatism, you say of the GG-clearing 'it works well' - but does it really though? Imagine the costs of such an operation: special vehicles, drivers, surveillance, alarms, having to 'move on a dime' means probably 95% 'downtime' where that special truck driver sits there idle, in wait, and likely a lot of special labour conditions because 'someone must be on duty' can't have everyone calling in sick. By 'it works' you mean to say 'the cars get moved quickly' - and yes, having been a daily Golden Gate commuter myself I'm witness to that, but it doesn't mean that it's in any way 'efficient'. It could be dreadfully expensive, to the point that alternatives should be explored (like more bridges). I don't know - but it could be. Again the example of 'government liquor stores' is a good corollary. 'They work', superficially. The definitely do - you can buy beer and liquor. To an individual buyer without reference it all seems fine. But absolutely nowhere outside of Ontario/Quebec/Sweden were alcohol distribution is socialized are people pushing for it - and there's considerably more diversity in choice and better price (and frankly this argument over 'corruption' is moot as I don't see a difference between public/private there). If government controlled liquor distribution were dismantled in On/Qu/Sk within 10 years it would be absolutely impossible to re-enact because there simply are no benefits to it. The only people who defend are those 'living within the system', like E. Germans believing they have 'great groceries' only to come to tears when the 'Wall Came Down' and they were exposed to the prodigious bounty of regular supermarkets in the West... and those naive, ideological 'chat board' warriors who support socialized systems even when the own experience speaks directly against it. Nobody on HN who ca buy a decent bottle of wine for $10 is would support their local government 'taking over the system' so that they can literally have 1/4 the selection, and 2x the prices. Nobody. It's a really weird intellectual asymmetry that needs to be studied frankly. You can buy better wine in a German supermarket, California kiosk than almost anywhere in Ontario. The French 'Walmart' (Carrefour) has literally 10x the selection of anywhere in Ontario, again, for 1/2 the cost. A colleague of mine grew up in Poland said that before the fall of the regime, they only had '3 kinds of ice cream': Chocolate, Vanilla and 'Pink' because anything else was 'bourgeois'. That we still have people defending this thinking is pretty crazy. These system exist because of incumbency, the power of local guilds and the people most benefiting from scheme (i.e. execs, staff), just like mercantilist royal suitors acquiring market monopolies from a bygone era before Adam Smith.

clarkmoody 6y ago

Alternatively, the bridge operator could offer a refund of the tolls if the transit of the bridge exceeds a contractually-guaranteed time. The profit motive would ensure adequate towing capabilities are allocated for the bridge. If towing is controlled by the political apparatus, then perhaps they don't send the tow trucks if a vehicle is blocking the bridge to make a political statement.

9000 6y ago
Sure, the bridge operator could do that, but why? Bridges don't operate as efficient markets with heavy competition, instead they tend to act as regional monopolies. If you don't cross this bridge, you usually have to drive an hour or more out of your way. This market position of the bridge operator gives them outsize leverage over their customers, and so there is no incentive for them to compete on things like price or low traffic congestion, because who are they competing with? So, I'm not sure a "profit motive" is really the solution here. Yes, the bridge operator could make that contractual offer and add towing infrastructure out of the goodness of their heart, but there's no incentive to doing so. A decent local government does have that incentive (as they are responsible to the commuters as voters), so they offer that service. You could have regulation that forces the bridge operator to provide this service instead of the government, but is that really less government intervention?
wtallis 6y ago
> The profit motive would ensure adequate towing capabilities are allocated for the bridge. You need to spell out exactly how you think that would work. Because the only "profit motive" I'm seeing is that the bridge operator would want to avoid losing money on refunding tolls, and would be incentivized to provide towing services. But isn't that bridge operator exactly the same government transportation authority that you are proposing doesn't need to be involved in providing towing services? Or are you proposing that the day to day maintenance and operations of a piece of critical infrastructure should be privatized, and then subject to provisions that ensure it's a risky/bad investment?
- clarkmoody 6y ago
  (spending more karma bringing libertarian ideas into a HN thread on infrastructure, but here goes) The point is that the bridge makes sure it has towing capabilities on standby for the fastest turnaround possible, since the operators of the bridge only care about the bridge. If a city government has a standing contract with some towing company, they probably use it for all sorts of things, so you wouldn't have that immediate standby capacity. I don't like the work "privatized." Instead, this would be a bridge built by entrepreneurs and operated as a business.
  - wtallis 6y ago
    > I don't like the work "privatized." Too bad. The meaning fits. It's unrealistic to propose that a new bridge would be built by private money. There's plenty of private investment money floating around in the Bay Area, and it hasn't come close to happening yet. And you have completely failed to respond to the concern that your proposed toll-refunding mandate would make a privately-operated bridge an even less viable investment than the non-starter it evidently already is. You're just dogmatically asserting that the free market will always provide, when it looks pretty clear that the free market would just say "no thanks".
mcguire 6y ago
On the one hand... "Alternatively, the bridge operator could be legally mandated to offer a refund of the tolls if the transit of the bridge exceeds a contractually-guaranteed time." I know it offends the libertarian sensibilities, but there's no reason for the operator to voluntarily do that. On the other hand... The Fort Lee lane closure thing. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/nyregion/george-washington-bridge-scandal-what-you-need-to-know.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/nyregion/george-washingto...)

jariel 6y ago

I don't think anyone even read what I actually wrote. As to your example I literally pointed out 'single points of access' (i.e. the GG bridge) as an cute concern wherein regulation, special interventions need to be made. That there are some places wherein intervention needs to be made, doesn't in any way help the argument that the broader case holds - your example does not help support the notion that 'tow trucks' in general should be socialized. (And FYI I think the 'market oriented solution' to bridge clearing probably won't work - but there may be other, smarter solutions such as 'more bridges' etc.) The notion of 'tow truck socialization' - while interesting fodder for reddit-ish discussion (ideas are always good) - is in practice, completely ridiculous. It's probably one a good example of things that should be the furthest from socialization. The 'pro socialization' knee-jerk responders chose a really ugly argument to die on, notably there's an absence of any reasonable arguments for how that would even make sense, other than in the OP 'if the government did it, it would be better!' - which is not an argument. As a matter of pragmatism, you say of the GG-clearing 'it works well' - but does it really though? Imagine the costs of such an operation: special vehicles, drivers, surveillance, alarms, having to 'move on a dime' means probably 95% 'downtime' where that special truck driver sits there idle, in wait, and likely a lot of special labour conditions because 'someone must be on duty' can't have everyone calling in sick. By 'it works' you mean to say 'the cars get moved quickly' - and yes, having been a daily Golden Gate commuter myself I'm witness to that, but it doesn't mean that it's in any way 'efficient'. It could be dreadfully expensive, to the point that alternatives should be explored (like more bridges). I don't know - but it could be. Again the example of 'government liquor stores' is a good corollary. 'They work', superficially. The definitely do - you can buy beer and liquor. To an individual buyer without reference it all seems fine. But absolutely nowhere outside of Ontario/Quebec/Sweden were alcohol distribution is socialized are people pushing for it - and there's considerably more diversity in choice and better price (and frankly this argument over 'corruption' is moot as I don't see a difference between public/private there). If government controlled liquor distribution were dismantled in On/Qu/Sk within 10 years it would be absolutely impossible to re-enact because there simply are no benefits to it. The only people who defend are those 'living within the system', like E. Germans believing they have 'great groceries' only to come to tears when the 'Wall Came Down' and they were exposed to the prodigious bounty of regular supermarkets in the West... and those naive, ideological 'chat board' warriors who support socialized systems even when the own experience speaks directly against it. Nobody on HN who ca buy a decent bottle of wine for $10 is would support their local government 'taking over the system' so that they can literally have 1/4 the selection, and 2x the prices. Nobody. It's a really weird intellectual asymmetry that needs to be studied frankly. You can buy better wine in a German supermarket, California kiosk than almost anywhere in Ontario. The French 'Walmart' (Carrefour) has literally 10x the selection of anywhere in Ontario, again, for 1/2 the cost. A colleague of mine grew up in Poland said that before the fall of the regime, they only had '3 kinds of ice cream': Chocolate, Vanilla and 'Pink' because anything else was 'bourgeois'. That we still have people defending this thinking is pretty crazy. These system exist because of incumbency, the power of local guilds and the people most benefiting from scheme (i.e. execs, staff), just like mercantilist royal suitors acquiring market monopolies from a bygone era before Adam Smith.