4 ms·
More accurately, Boston prioritized capital projects and let existing infrastructure decay until it became a proper capital project. And, when it came to capita
by unyttigfjelltol 4y ago
More accurately, Boston prioritized capital projects and let existing infrastructure decay until it became a proper capital project. And, when it came to capital projects the ones that were prioritized were only the ones required by law, which didn't make the system safer, faster, or more reliable for most riders.
Transit is a mess because ... it became unprofitable as a private business about 100 years ago, was tricky to run way back then, and now politicians that run it only sometimes have goals aligned with riders.
- guardiangod 4y agoTransit is unprofitable only in North America. Everywhere else public transit makes money.
- BirdieNZ 4y agoNot sure if this is satire, but most places lose money on public transit (at least, the ticket fares don't cover operating and capital costs). A few places make money off public transit, such as Hong Kong's MTR, because they own the land around the stations and build shopping malls on the land and profit from the rent. Of course, there are less immediately tangible financial benefits of having public transit, such as improving a city's economy through moving labour efficiently compared to, say, roads.
- throwaway2037 4y agoCould you share some examples in Europe, Middle East, or Latin America? I'm pretty sure that 100% of them lose money, but they serve an important purpose. The same can be said for expressway/highway/freeway systems. They are a public good and very useful for the economy.
- midoridensha 4y agoThe systems in Japan are profitable, and run by private companies.
- amrocha 4y agoThat's leaving out the part where they were privatized and the government ate the entire cost of building the infrastructure up to that point
- midoridensha 4y agoPerhaps, but the claim was that 100% of transit systems "lose money". Japan's systems don't lose money (any more): they're profitable. They take in more money from ridership than they cost to run. I'm not sure it's really possible to have a totally profitable transit system of any kind, when accounting for all the infrastructure construction and acquisition costs. I don't think even a roadway system would work, if people had to pay-per-use. The cost would just be too high and people at the bottom wouldn't be able to use it, and then the whole society would just collapse, or you'd have people use it without paying like you see in a American cities now (faregate-jumping).
- amrocha 4y agoIdk, that feels like an accounting trick to me. Sure, it's technically profitable now, but only because they get to reap the benefit of a network effect without paying for it. I agree with you though, profitability is an impossible goal simply because the benefits of an extensive rail network can't be captured by fares alone. It's the perfect case for taxation and public investment.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ryan_lane 4y agoThey make a lot of that profit from renting space in the stations and along the underneath of the lines (where the train is elevated and outside). The ridership is also insanely high, partly due to how good the service is, and also partly due to the density (which is a virtuous cycle provided by good service). It's worth noting that not all of the systems in Japan are privately run.
- Anechoic 4y agoBoston prioritized capital projects Because U.S. transit systems get Federal money for capital projects, but don't get Fed money for regular maintenance.