The U.S. Gets Less Subway for Its Money Than Its Peers
1–10 of 179 posts
Re: The U.S. Gets Less Subway for Its Money Than Its Peers
#2TL;DR unions, shady contractors and expensive project requirements in no particular order.
Edit: Was this not an accurate summary of the key issues mentioned?
Re: The U.S. Gets Less Subway for Its Money Than Its Peers
#3This is a dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16248036
Re: The U.S. Gets Less Subway for Its Money Than Its Peers
#4The US seems to get less of everything for its money than its peers. Geographic spread is a major macro factor, but you'd still think that a supposedly efficient capitalistic market would at least handle local services better.
Re: The U.S. Gets Less Subway for Its Money Than Its Peers
#5The US seems to get less of everything for its money than its peers. Geographic spread is a major macro factor, but you'd still think that a supposedly efficient capitalistic market would at least handle local services better.
But not petrol.
Re: The U.S. Gets Less Subway for Its Money Than Its Peers
#6NYT has a great writeup on the East Side Access tunnel. In short, the costs work out to 3.5bn/mile (!), there's ~200 "ghost" workers, and the usual spot of corruption and favoritism. It's a mess, and the MTA is deferring regular maintenance to pay for it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
Re: The U.S. Gets Less Subway for Its Money Than Its Peers
#7TL;DR unions, shady contractors and expensive project requirements in no particular order. Edit: Was this not an accurate summary of the key issues mentioned?
Specifically bad union rules. European countries also rely on union labor and don't have this problem. Another factor mentioned in the article is poor management which seems to be a common theme in America.
Re: The U.S. Gets Less Subway for Its Money Than Its Peers
#8The US seems to get less of everything for its money than its peers. Geographic spread is a major macro factor, but you'd still think that a supposedly efficient capitalistic market would at least handle local services better.
> a supposedly efficient capitalistic market
The 'new commanding heights'[1] of the modern U.S. economy are all the least capitalistic markets: education, healthcare, and housing.
Nor would I expect "local services" to be much more 'capitalistic' if you're referring to services provided by municipal governments.
[1]: [The New Commanding Heights | National Affairs](http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-new-c...)
Re: The U.S. Gets Less Subway for Its Money Than Its Peers
#9The US seems to get less of everything for its money than its peers. Geographic spread is a major macro factor, but you'd still think that a supposedly efficient capitalistic market would at least handle local services better.
For market based goods, the US does deliver pretty phenomenal, innovative and minimally priced outputs. Groceries, energy, technology, etc.
"Local services" are almost always driven by non-market based considerations. Politics, not economics, determines contract awards for public works. It's as far from the market as you can get. And our society receives commensurate "value."
Re: The U.S. Gets Less Subway for Its Money Than Its Peers
#10The US seems to get less of everything for its money than its peers. Geographic spread is a major macro factor, but you'd still think that a supposedly efficient capitalistic market would at least handle local services better.
> supposedly efficient capitalistic market
Unfortunately that's not what we have when dealing with regulations, red tape, unions, and somewhat unaccountable government agencies running the show.