US Taxpayers are Gouged on Mass Transit Costs

[krazen1211]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-26/u-s-taxpayers-are-gouged-on-mass-transit-costs.html

If the first segment of Manhattan’s Second Avenue subway opens on schedule in 2016, New Yorkers will be reminded that it was once “the line that time forgot” -- a project more than 75 years in the making, with no end in sight. It should be remembered for another failing as well: It will be one of the most expensive subways in the world.
Tunneling in any dense urban environment is an expensive proposition, but the $5 billion price tag for just the first two miles of the Second Avenue subway cannot be explained by engineering difficulties. The segment runs mainly beneath a single broad avenue, unimpeded by rivers, super-tall skyscraper foundations or other subway lines.
American taxpayers will shell out many times what their counterparts in developed cities in Europe and Asia would pay. In the case of the Second Avenue line and other new rail infrastructure in New York City, they may have to pay five times as much.




This is of course why certain types consistently babble about so called 'infrastructure' spending. They want to pay off those well connected unions to funnel back money into their political party.

[krazen1211]

This is of course why certain types consistently babble about so called 'infrastructure' spending. They want to pay off those well connected unions to funnel back money into their political party.

Your craziness and paranoia is both hilarious and sad.

Not paranoia, no. It is merely unfortunate that the unions can pillage the treasury with such ease.

[krazen1211]

BGwah forgot to click part 2. Heh. Not surprised!


For the past 50 years, however, this progress has eluded passenger rail in the U.S. While unions and management squabble over wages and benefits, the overarching issue of labor productivity remains unresolved. The resulting high labor costs drag down service, prevent new lines from opening, and depress ridership and revenues.

The railroad’s reforms were thwarted by labor arbitrators and eventually a short strike, according to a 1998 report by John Allen of Chicago’s Regional Transportation Authority. Any trains with six or more cars were required to have three-person crews. Unable to make a profit amid declining ridership and high labor costs, the RTA started subsidizing Chicago regional-rail service along the Illinois Central in 1976, and bought the tracks outright in 1987.

[krazen1211]

THAT'S it?!? Your 'triumphant riposte'?

Laughable. Your reputation for inherent dishonesty goes unbesmearched.

I am sorry that you don't know what's in your own best interest.

[krazen1211]

Well that was a well hidden "part 2" link. But the website refers to them as two separate articles, and I replied based off the one you linked to... So neener neener.

The second article does bring up an interesting point I've thought of before. The up-front construction costs for completely grade-separated rail (usually meaning subway or elevated) are higher than say, a streetcar or light rail, but because they are separated from automobiles they can be automated, thus greatly reducing labor costs for many decades.

I also  found this interesting:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Many of the labor problems mentioned in the second article seem to appear only in older cities.   Washington is heavily unionized, but Seattle's new light rail line doesn't seem to have a lot of those oddities.

Once again, these are all fixable problems. We need more efficient government.

Well, yes, the glorious state of Washington does not burden its citizens with an income tax. In New Jersey and New York the Democratic party can't wait to drag out the income tax stick to beat its citizenry.

If your chumps wanted to fix these fixable problems they would have done so. But they are making money, of course.

[krazen1211]

If you believe that non mass transit is cheap, I have a $6.3 billion half of a bay bridge to sell you.

They built the Golden Gate Bridge for $1.2 billion of today's dollars.

[krazen1211]

THAT'S it?!? Your 'triumphant riposte'?

Laughable. Your reputation for inherent dishonesty goes unbesmearched.

I am sorry that you don't know what's in your own best interest.

My 'own best interests'? Seriously, what the f%$k are you talking about? I honestly have no clue.

You've now added 'incomprehensible' to 'dishonest' among your list of discriptive adjectives.

I presumed that you were a productive citizen. I stand corrected. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

[krazen1211]

And Republicans are even worse with defense spending. Pick your poison, I guess. And it doesn't sound like my chumps (here in WA) are nearly as bad. But we're having trouble with the new 520 bridge, so maybe I shouldn't speak so soon. Though we don't know who is at fault yet, and it's looking more like a company cutting corners to save money than unions at this point.

That would be a nice theory that is disproven by your chumps current level of defense spending.

[krazen1211]

New infrastructure helps the economy by merely existing.

This is why the OP is falsely premised. Government-funded mass transit almost never turns a profit and usually operates at a substantial loss per passenger, but heavy subsidies are justified because of the substantial positive externalities associated with these services. It's something that an unmanaged market that doesn't account for public benefits is totally unequipped to provide.

This does not logically lead to heavily overpaying for such product in order to transfer money to your union friends.