3 ms·

> 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. Becaus

> 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".

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".