US Taxpayers are Gouged on Mass Transit Costs

[bedstuy]

If the US healthcare system was anywhere near as efficient as the NYC subway, that would be a massive improvement.

I must admit I do not understand a lot about the health industry or how efficient it is.  I suspect given all the government regulations in the USA it most likely it is now. My personal experiences with the health care industry has been very positive but I am shielded from the cost as my insurance pay for almost all of it (that is a bad idea as I should have an incentive to rationalize my use of it.)  My experience using the MTA has been very negative, I see silly things on a daily basis that would be easily fixed if it was a for profit system.  I work in software in NYC and it is well know in the developer space in NYC that working for the MTA is a good route toward a below average pay for a programmer but you will pretty much do nothing everyday.  That is typical of union dominated MTA.  I am fine with keeping it government controlled because I do not think any private concern would touch it now unless we also roll back decades of regulations as well.  But get rid of the unions and keep them out.

The USA has great doctors and delivers very high quality care in many places.  But, there is a byzantine system of billing, insurance and regulation.  The system skews incentives towards over-providing services, not caring about costs and not paying attention to long-term health outcomes. 

You're right that NYC has a broken system of public employment.  It has certainly been abused by politicians and corrupt unions for a long time.  But, that doesn't mean the system should be totally private.  There needs to be large government investment in capital improvements and operating expenses.  That would be tricky with a completely private system.  Perhaps, MTA could contract out things like computer programming or even most of their salaried positions.  In any case, New York needs to stop being corrupt.

[King]

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

The question is not if mass transit is a good idea, clearly it is given certain demographic and geographic situations, it is more about how to run such a system.  I am for private ownership as being more efficient but I am open to government ownership given the massive capital costs involved.  My real objection are with government ownership the goal still has to be to extra surplus value and not let labor unions destroy insentives for greater efficiencies.

Mass transit doesn't make money.  There is no private option, unless you just want private management after construction.

[Ban my account ffs!]

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

The question is not if mass transit is a good idea, clearly it is given certain demographic and geographic situations, it is more about how to run such a system.  I am for private ownership as being more efficient but I am open to government ownership given the massive capital costs involved.  My real objection are with government ownership the goal still has to be to extra surplus value and not let labor unions destroy insentives for greater efficiencies.

Mass transit doesn't make money.  There is no private option, unless you just want private management after construction.

There is a private option in bus service.  But that's about it.  Long haul bus companies are profitable.

I'd bet long haul high speed rail would be profitable if the tracks were public and leased to the private companies.

[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.

[bgwah]

^its a two-part series of articles. He didn't link to the one about labor costs in his original post, though.