Hacker News Reader

Comment by dcolkitt | Hacker News Reader

I think you need to understand this from the perspective of those of us who lean fiscally conservative. Large government projects like The Big Dig and Second Avenue Subway have a history in this country of being horribly mismanaged and wasting enormous amounts of money. And you're basically arguing that this augurs that we should be funding these projects more not less.

Analogously imagine you have a relative who gets sloppy drunk and wreaks havoc every time he's around alcohol. Then he makes the argument that it's because he doesn't have enough alcohol. That maybe if he had a constant secure supply he wouldn't feel the need to binge every time he gets his hand on a bottle of vodka.

I'm not saying that your argument is wrong. But poorly run government projects prima facie justify less government spending not more. If you want to make the case that it's the opposite, there's a pretty high burden of proof.

View on HN

So I also lean fiscally conservative, but as I read the argument, it's not that more money should be thrown after bad projects, it's that "if you're going to do something, do it right". Hire people who know what they're doing, pay them well, and give them time horizons long enough to actually complete the projects instead of thrashing about as a new politician comes into office.

I'd actually agree with that - I think the government should do fewer things, but do them better. Infrastructure is one of those things where there's a good economic reason why the government needs to do it (privately-funded infrastructure tends to run into tragedy-of-the-commons and diffused responsibility problems), so if responsibility for infrastructure is going to rest with the government, they might as well get it right.

You're arguing that Americans are fundamentally incompetent and unable to govern themselves.

Americans are fundamentally incompetent and unable to govern themselves. People keep blaming “Reagan” but it’s blue cities and states where infrastructure projects fail spectacularly. The Second Avenue subway was built in New York not Montana. The California HSR was in California not Texas. These projects are not underfunded. They’re funded more heavily than comparable projects in Europe. They’re also not undertaken by small organizations on shoestring budgets. The NY MTA has a surplus of highly competent career administrators and engineers.

> The NY MTA has a surplus of highly competent career administrators and engineers.

Does it? Or are the competent administrators (and engineers, but particularly the administrators - managing big projects is hard!) all getting paid bank at the most lucrative private companies?

If you want transparency and cost effectiveness and speed you need some really fucking good management.

I wouldn’t argue that. Other countries have similar issues, but either are politically inclined to ignore them Like many west African nations, or simply power through the issue via the strength of their economy like the European powers.

Any large infrastructure project isn't going to be done by a single private organization. It is way too big of a gamble, it has to be funded and overseen by the United States government. The only reason a transcontinental railway was built in the U.S was because of government subsidies. These subsidies were competed over by Union Pacific and Central Pacific, whoever built the most rail first got the most land grants and cash. You could argue that the quality was low because of the initiative but it was iterated on and improved over time.

Private organizations build the infrastructure behind the internet, but that’s because it is simpler than other infrastructural systems.

Ultimately people have finite time, and the people responsible for oversight should be those who benefit the most from the project coming under budget and on time.

No, the idea is that you actually need to properly fund and train the people overseeing the projects. Fiscal conservatives have been understaffing executive offices for years and then point at them when they fail. The DMV wouldn't suck if they just gave a bit more money and hired more people, but it will suck forever because everyone thinks it just sucks because Lol government sucks.

Exactly. Underfunding agencies and programs, then blaming them when they inevitably fail and using that failure as an argument to push for privatization has been the Republican modus operandi for several decades now.

The US spends more per unit of service almost every public sector program than European countries. Overall, our non-military government spending per person is actually slightly more than Canada’s. At the local level, it costs NYC twice as much per passenger mile to operate almost an identical subway system to London’s.

Moreover, by your logic, infrastructure would be better in liberal cities and states. But it’s not. Baltimore hasn’t had a republican mayor since 1967. The city council hasn’t had a republican since 1942. Where can I find a republican to blame for the fact that it’s infrastructure is a disaster? San Francisco hasn’t had a republican mayor since 1964, has just a single republican in city-wide elected office, and the entire Bay Area currently has no republican representatives in either the state legislature or the Congress. DC has never had a republican mayor. These places should have great public services, right? If not transit (where Democrats sometimes have to share power with republicans at the state level) but schools, local public services, etc., should be fantastic and well funded, right?

>Moreover, by your logic, infrastructure would be better in liberal cities and states. But it’s not.

What metric are you using to make this claim? I don’t even know of any non liberal cities. And whatever their faults may be, liberal cities and states are more desirable to live in or near, based on price data.

Rich people tend to congregate in blue cities and states, but on the whole they suffer from massive domestic out-migration (more residents leaving for other states than residents of other states coming there). New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Illinois are all losing large numbers of residents to other states: https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5a57cab528eecc1d008b4....

> I don’t even know of any non liberal cities.

Phoenix, Arizona, the fastest growing large city in the U.S. As to states, the 10 most popular governors currently are all republicans, while 7 of the 10 least popular are democrats: https://freebeacon.com/politics/10-most-popular-governors-in....

This is not really a broad political point, but a very narrow response to the idea that infrastructure and public services suck in the U.S. "because republicans." When you live in a city like New York, DC, or SF, where 80% of people vote for the democratic candidate year-after-year, you can't really blame Reagan for the fact that the schools suck, the transit is falling apart, etc.

Sure you can, they need federal aid and aren't getting it. A city can't be by itself like some type of city state, a modern city needs huge federal investments. Which brings back the argument "because Republicans". Try again.

Why do cities need federal aid to pay for purely local services like schools, subways, buses, water/sewer, etc? Maybe you can blame republicans for the lack of high speed rail between New York and DC, but how do you blame them for the terrible schools in those cities, the awful experience of dealing with government agencies, etc?

Also, it’s not clear to me that transit projects in other countries receive dramatically more national funding. The French National government is paying for only 20% of Paris’s new regional transit extension: https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/05/27/paris-region-.... That’s consistent with what similar projects in the US receive. (For example, the next phase of the Second Avenue subway is eligible for up to $2 billion from federal sources of a $6 billion total cost. And the federal government is paying $900 million of the $6 billion purple line in Maryland.) More important, it’s a small enough percentage of the overall budget that federal republicans withholding federal support shouldn’t make or break projects.

> At the local level, it costs NYC twice as much per passenger mile to operate almost an identical subway system to London’s. > Moreover, by your logic, infrastructure would be better in liberal cities and states. But it’s not.

NYC and London, both liberal cities, the latter arguably more liberal as regards public transit funding, yet NYC costs twice as much per passenger mile of subway. Seems like being a liberal city doesn't really explain the difference.

What makes you think London is more liberal? Most of Europe is more conservative in many respects than the U.S. in terms of transit funding. For example, for the most part trains in the U.K. and continental Europe are operated by private companies that are expected to cover their operational costs. (Though the government often covers capital costs.) By contrast, transit in the U.S. universally runs at a significant operating loss. Both London and New York, for example, cover capital costs for their subway. But the Tube runs at a slight operating profit, while the NYC Subway only recovers about half of its operating costs. (Tube fare, for example, starts at higher than the NYC subway fare, and for longer distances is almost three times as much.)

> What makes you think London is more liberal? Most of Europe is more conservative in many respects than the U.S. in terms of transit funding.

Are you using the political meaning of "liberal" or the financial meaning, "not very worried about overspending"?

I mean liberal in the political sense of government being ultimately responsible for the execution and success of infrastructure projects. Such a scenario could be financially conservative in the sense of providing transit service on budget, which London appears to do. Or it could be inefficient (or financially "liberal") like the examples we've discussed.

I think the real difference is that in places like London, well off people take transit more than is typical in the United States (due to a history of class and race coding around transit in the US), so there is more political incentive in London to ensure that the government agencies that build efficient, comprehensive, and effective transit.

Similar cultural priorities and even better transit systems can be found in Germany and other parts of Europe.

Or to put it simply, in London, bankers take the Tube. The same kind of people in the US usually drive cars, because the mass transit option is underinvested and hence slower, less maintained, and used mostly by poorer people. This is the case for many municipal bus agencies in the US.

I’m using the political/economic meaning of “conservative.” Requiring the subway to run at an operating profit (London) is a more politically conservative model than treating it as a public service that is heavily-subsidized to keep ticket prices low (New York). Other models typical in Europe are even more conservative. Stockholm’s subway system is operated and maintained by private companies, including MTR (the Hong Kong transit operator). France is trying to privatize the Paris airport and SNCF, the French rail operator. Deutsche Bahn, the German rail operator, is owned by the German government, but operated as a for-profit corporation rather than a government agency. It has operations in numerous other countries, and its CEO is paid over 1.5 million euro per year (4x as much as Amtrak’s CEO).

Indeed, the EU had a directive encouraging deregulation of rail: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_European_Railway_Dire.... It encourages separating the infrastructure from the operating companies, and opening the operations to international competition. If we had that in the US, a private company in Omaha could bid to operate commuter rail service in New York or Chicago. That’s a very politically conservative (neoliberal) approach.

> Requiring the subway to run at an operating profit (London) is a more politically conservative model than treating it as a public service that is heavily-subsidized to keep ticket prices low (New York).

Agreed, but raising ticket prices to ensure that a transit system runs a profit requires that the alternatives (driving, taxi, uber) are sufficiently expensive by pricing in their externalities.

It also requires that your average transit rider have enough income, and that the transit system be clean and comprehensive, which requires investment.

You can't build a great transit system by starving it of revenue.

> It also requires that your average transit rider have enough income,

London incomes are substantially lower than New York incomes, while transit fares in London are substantially higher.

> and that the transit system be clean and comprehensive, which requires investment.

London’s and New York’s subways have almost identical track mileage in cities that are similar in population and density. London’s system is expanding more now, but again that’s due to more liberal policies in New York. The US has some of the strongest public sector unions in the world, which drives up capital costs. It also has stringent environmental review and public participation laws for transit projects, which again drives up capital costs. These are all “liberal” policies.

As to cleanliness, cleaning is an operating cost, and that’s an example of something that the US does in a “liberal” way (cleaning staff typically are government employees), while Europe often does in a “conservative” way. In the case of London, cleaning is an operating cost Transport for London is required to pay for through ticket revenue, while in New York the government covers half the cost. And in Stockholm, cleaning, along with most other operations, is done by private companies.

> You can't build a great transit system by starving it of revenue.

New York spends twice as much per passenger mile as London in operating costs, and several times as much for equivalent new infrastructure. In no way is New York’s system starved of revenue. Same for DC, Chicago, Boston, etc. None of these systems are “starved for revenue.”

> London incomes are substantially lower than New York incomes, while transit fares in London are substantially higher.

Right, which is why I agree NYC subway fares should be higher, and shouldn't be a flat-rate no matter where you are going, which is what they are today IIUC.

But lower incomes than NYC that also means the London underground's labor costs are lower. Londoners make do with the higher fares despite their lower incomes because driving is even more expensive.

> London’s and New York’s subways have almost identical track mileage in cities that are similar in population and density. London’s system is expanding more now, but again that’s due to more liberal policies in New York. The US has some of the strongest public sector unions in the world, which drives up capital costs. It also has stringent environmental review and public participation laws for transit projects, which again drives up capital costs.

Without a citation (I'm genuinely interested) for a comparative strength of transit unions for NYC and London and the resulting effect on capital costs, there is nothing backing this statement besides what appears to be your general anti-union ideology.

London Underground workers are part of a national union [1], and have organized a number of strikes, as recently as 2017 [2]. Regarding environmental reviews TfL has to do those also [3]. Please provide some references to support the assertion that their reviews are sufficiently less onerous than NYC's.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Union_of_Rail,_Mariti... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_strikes [3] https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/enviro...

Ultimately, Londoners pay a higher price for a higher quality of public transit service. Setting up the system to work that way that way isn't the result of a religious adherence to "liberal" or "conservative" policies, it's a decision to make public transit a priority and establishing whatever structures and incentives are needed to achieve that.

And before anyone says that the big dig was a success because it made traffic suck less and the waterfront got rich...

Anything they did would have made traffic suck less. With the influx of rich people back into the cities in the late 90s the waterfront was gonna get rich no matter what they did.

With the benefit of hindsight it seems clear that the original 1950s/60s plans (themselves adaptation of 1940s plans) for expanding the highway and subway systems should have been followed (in no particular order so long as it all got done) and they should have tossed in a beltway line (so that literally everyone who needs to get across the city doesn't need to go downtown to do it) of some sort. They had a plan and they didn't follow it. They basically assembled 80% of the puzzle and then left it. That's why none of the major road/rail arteries in Boston link up in a sensible manner. IMO had Boston and the state not shot itself in the foot by repeatedly neutering its transit plans throughout the 20th century (killing I695, not pursuing the North/South station connector, making the silver line a bus line instead of a proper subway, the list goes on) it could have been as economically developed as the DMV area or the NYC/NJ area.

Don't get me wrong, it's nice that the highway is below ground but it has its costs. Literally an entire generation of people grew up not knowing what regular infrastructure maintenance and upgrades looked like because the state was pouring all that money into a bunch of holes under Boston. It was not worth the cost. Given the choice of two ugly highways in downtown Boston bundled with any one of the planned subway developments (maybe the North/South station connector) or what we have today the choice is obvious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com