6 ms·

So we're talking about transportation, and I guess I have to ask exactly what transportation infrastructure you then mean? Because the only serious, broad, fede

So we're talking about transportation, and I guess I have to ask exactly what transportation infrastructure you then mean? Because the only serious, broad, federally-managed transportation infrastructure I can think of are like, military airbases. Which tend to be pretty good! That's assuming, of course, you mean the US government--which does not own things like highways, for those unclear; it does have a controlling stake in Amtrak, but aside from the NEC (which is great IMO) Amtrak does not own the railways that actually serve as rail infrastructure. Because, of course, country governments elsewhere regularly own or have majority stakes in both railroads and railways, to pretty good success. Or, on the other other hand, maybe you mean non-transporation infrastructure? 'Cause frankly, the US Postal Service was pretty great 'til "the government doesn't work and we're going to prove it by ripping out big chunks of it" politicians got their hands on it.

oatmeal1 3y ago
> That's assuming, of course, you mean the US government--which does not own things like highways I was responding to a comment which said "states or the fed," so of course I was referring to those both. The states own the highways.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> Because the only serious, broad, federally-managed transportation infrastructure I can think of are like, military airbases. Which tend to be pretty good! I hope you're not putting forth the Department of Defense as a positive exemplar of government efficiency. > That's assuming, of course, you mean the US government--which does not own things like highways The federal government funds 90% of the interstate highway system. The job it does at this is kind of medium and has all of the usual problems that happen when you're spending somebody else's money, e.g. the roads are always under construction because the construction companies get paid if they're "working" (even if that means standing around) so finishing projects quickly is disfavored because they want the work to expand to fill the available budget rather than the other way around. The general problem with government projects in the US is that they put too much emphasis on false economies of scale and try to allocate contracts that are too large. For example, instead of contracting with one company for rolling stock and it maintenance, they should buy rolling stock as-needed from anyone who makes it broadly matching a required spec (e.g. the correct width of the track) and then contract with separate companies for maintenance. The most important thing, which they fail at utterly, is to make contracts small and simple and make it easy for companies that don't specialize in government contracting to bid on them. Because otherwise they only get companies that do specialize in government contracting, even when the contract is for some fungible commodity, and end up paying unreasonable rates for everything. > the US Postal Service was pretty great 'til "the government doesn't work and we're going to prove it by ripping out big chunks of it" politicians got their hands on it. The US Postal Service had a monopoly on first class mail at a time when lots of things were delivered via first class mail. It wasn't particularly cost efficient but it delivered the mail and it couldn't be outcompeted by someone else because competing with it was prohibited by law. Then first class mail got replaced by email while online purchasing increased enough to give UPS and FedEx enough economies of scale to outcompete USPS for package delivery even with the USPS having existing trucks delivering the mail. Then it actually had to compete on efficiency, which it failed to do and ran into problems. Then people started trying to reform it. Which never really worked because a government agency is constrained by political forces, e.g. public sector unions that capture legislators ("management") who are supposed to represent the general public against the unions representing the public's employees. If you then put it into competition with private companies, it will generally operate less efficiently and go bankrupt. Which is fine as long as the private companies continue to operate in a competitive market themselves, until someone decrees that we need to save the publicly operated business that failed in the market.
orwin 3y ago
Also, the argument for "companies are more efficient than government" is that the free market will sink corrupt/inefficient organizations. I don't see how it applies to infrastructure management. I understand how it can apply to energy producers (overall disagree on that, i work for a big energy producer who have multiple plant of a lot of different types, and in the end the electricity market the EU copied from the US made us less efficient, i have math to prove it), to service providers, or even to train companies and railroad building companies. And i think that for non-critical infra construction it's even good. But managing infrastructure is hard, and put a company at the right place (between consummer and producers) to both put a toll on a service, and to be increasingly susceptible to corruption.
- oatmeal1 3y ago
  The government has invested grotesque amounts of money to support the most inefficient, isolating, unhealthy, environmentally damaging mode of transit known to the public (cars). Transit would be vastly cheaper, cleaner and faster if private industry were to have been in charge.

oatmeal1 3y ago

> That's assuming, of course, you mean the US government--which does not own things like highways I was responding to a comment which said "states or the fed," so of course I was referring to those both. The states own the highways.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> Because the only serious, broad, federally-managed transportation infrastructure I can think of are like, military airbases. Which tend to be pretty good! I hope you're not putting forth the Department of Defense as a positive exemplar of government efficiency. > That's assuming, of course, you mean the US government--which does not own things like highways The federal government funds 90% of the interstate highway system. The job it does at this is kind of medium and has all of the usual problems that happen when you're spending somebody else's money, e.g. the roads are always under construction because the construction companies get paid if they're "working" (even if that means standing around) so finishing projects quickly is disfavored because they want the work to expand to fill the available budget rather than the other way around. The general problem with government projects in the US is that they put too much emphasis on false economies of scale and try to allocate contracts that are too large. For example, instead of contracting with one company for rolling stock and it maintenance, they should buy rolling stock as-needed from anyone who makes it broadly matching a required spec (e.g. the correct width of the track) and then contract with separate companies for maintenance. The most important thing, which they fail at utterly, is to make contracts small and simple and make it easy for companies that don't specialize in government contracting to bid on them. Because otherwise they only get companies that do specialize in government contracting, even when the contract is for some fungible commodity, and end up paying unreasonable rates for everything. > the US Postal Service was pretty great 'til "the government doesn't work and we're going to prove it by ripping out big chunks of it" politicians got their hands on it. The US Postal Service had a monopoly on first class mail at a time when lots of things were delivered via first class mail. It wasn't particularly cost efficient but it delivered the mail and it couldn't be outcompeted by someone else because competing with it was prohibited by law. Then first class mail got replaced by email while online purchasing increased enough to give UPS and FedEx enough economies of scale to outcompete USPS for package delivery even with the USPS having existing trucks delivering the mail. Then it actually had to compete on efficiency, which it failed to do and ran into problems. Then people started trying to reform it. Which never really worked because a government agency is constrained by political forces, e.g. public sector unions that capture legislators ("management") who are supposed to represent the general public against the unions representing the public's employees. If you then put it into competition with private companies, it will generally operate less efficiently and go bankrupt. Which is fine as long as the private companies continue to operate in a competitive market themselves, until someone decrees that we need to save the publicly operated business that failed in the market.

orwin 3y ago

Also, the argument for "companies are more efficient than government" is that the free market will sink corrupt/inefficient organizations. I don't see how it applies to infrastructure management. I understand how it can apply to energy producers (overall disagree on that, i work for a big energy producer who have multiple plant of a lot of different types, and in the end the electricity market the EU copied from the US made us less efficient, i have math to prove it), to service providers, or even to train companies and railroad building companies. And i think that for non-critical infra construction it's even good. But managing infrastructure is hard, and put a company at the right place (between consummer and producers) to both put a toll on a service, and to be increasingly susceptible to corruption.

oatmeal1 3y ago
The government has invested grotesque amounts of money to support the most inefficient, isolating, unhealthy, environmentally damaging mode of transit known to the public (cars). Transit would be vastly cheaper, cleaner and faster if private industry were to have been in charge.