Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The U.S. Gets Less Subway for Its Money Than Its Peers

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 179 posts

Re: The U.S. Gets Less Subway for Its Money Than Its Peers

#81

Post by refurb »

kken wrote: post #62
bkohlmann wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

>Groceries Are you serious? Groceries in the US are surprisingly expensive compared to Europe.

What? I've shopped in the U.K., Spain, Greece, Switzerland and Sweden. The U.K. Was pretty much on par with the US for basic staples. The others were the same or more.

Unless your comparing to some boutique grocery in the US.

The US is WAY cheaper than Canada.

Re: The U.S. Gets Less Subway for Its Money Than Its Peers

#82

Post by indoordinosaur »

bhups wrote: post #59
scythe wrote: post #27

It seems like European infrastructure construction is more centralized than its American counterpart. In the Bay Area, there are two competing transit providers, each funded by the same taxpayers. Every city seems to run its own show, and CAHSR infamously rejected offers from European companies to do construction. It's just my view from 10000 feet, but the average city council has few civil engineers on board, so may…

This is half true: European infrastructure construction is almost perfectly decentralized to the point that it's (for the most part) fully centralized at the level of each member state. The US half tries to fund and administer infrastructure at the federal level, state level, as well as local level, depending on the state. As an American, I find the EU to have phenomenally good infrastructure, but I think that's beca…

This is why I'm not entirely opposed to the Trump infrastructure philosophy of encouraging states and local governments to pay their own way. It also encourages more private investment in infrastructure which is something that has contributed to the success of the subways in Seoul, Hong Kong and Tokyo as well as the original builders of the NYC subway.

Re: The U.S. Gets Less Subway for Its Money Than Its Peers

#83

Post by gwright »

heurist wrote: post #4

The 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.

Too much of a generalization I think.

There is clearly something out of whack on public infrastructure projects, which have very little to do with "efficient capitalistic markets".

I'm not sure how you get from there to your statement about "local services" not being addressed by the market. It isn't clear what other things you think are broken. Mainly just suggesting that more specificity would clarify your point.

Re: The U.S. Gets Less Subway for Its Money Than Its Peers

#84

Post by ucaetano »

ska wrote: post #64
ucaetano wrote: post #39

The US probably has the best, most efficient private sector of any developed country. And the worst, most inefficient public sector of any developed country. It chooses to prioritize the private sector over the public sector. Other countries choose otherwise. Each model has its advantages and disadvantages. This (efficiency of building public transit) is the outcome of the US model.

The US probably has the best, most efficient private sector of any developed country. All you have to do is look at healthcare to realize this is (at least a) questionable assertion. I mean, it's dogmatic to believe so as an American but it's at least worth a proper look at.

> All you have to do is look at healthcare to realize this is (at least a) questionable assertion.

Healthcare companies are more profitable in the US than anywhere else in the world.

Yep, "most efficient private sector" still applies.

Re: The U.S. Gets Less Subway for Its Money Than Its Peers

#85

Post by nkoren »

xya3453 wrote: post #54
ucaetano wrote: post #39

The US probably has the best, most efficient private sector of any developed country. And the worst, most inefficient public sector of any developed country. It chooses to prioritize the private sector over the public sector. Other countries choose otherwise. Each model has its advantages and disadvantages. This (efficiency of building public transit) is the outcome of the US model.

The US public sector is actually middle of the pack [1]. 1. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/PublicSe...

Dunno about the rest of the metrics, but the relative rankings in "infrastructure outcomes" seem deeply off-kilter, based on my own experience (I work in infrastructure planning and have spent time in most of those countries). Would really like to see that measurement explained.

Re: The U.S. Gets Less Subway for Its Money Than Its Peers

#86

Post by ucaetano »

jessriedel wrote: post #58
ucaetano wrote: post #39

The US probably has the best, most efficient private sector of any developed country. And the worst, most inefficient public sector of any developed country. It chooses to prioritize the private sector over the public sector. Other countries choose otherwise. Each model has its advantages and disadvantages. This (efficiency of building public transit) is the outcome of the US model.

I don't really see why we should expect any tradeoff between the two. Most efficiency innovations would transfer.

It isn't about "enfficiency innovations". You always have to make tradeoffs between the collective and the individual, the private and the public.

Allowing private companies to extract economic rents from the public is good for the private sector, bad for the public. And vice-versa.

Take social expenditures, for example. The US spends 80%-90% of what Germany, Netherlands and Switzerland spend per capita PPP, yet the public services and social welfare in the US are abysmally bad.

Re: The U.S. Gets Less Subway for Its Money Than Its Peers

#87

Post by ucaetano »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #48
ucaetano wrote: post #39

The US probably has the best, most efficient private sector of any developed country. And the worst, most inefficient public sector of any developed country. It chooses to prioritize the private sector over the public sector. Other countries choose otherwise. Each model has its advantages and disadvantages. This (efficiency of building public transit) is the outcome of the US model.

> And the worst, most inefficient public sector of any developed country. I'm pretty sure most who live in their own developed country think their own public sector is the most inefficient. Well, maybe not the Swiss.

The US spends 80%-90% of what Germany, Netherlands and Switzerland spend per capita PPP, yet the public services and social welfare in the US are abysmally bad.

> Well, maybe not the Swiss.

Yep, reasonably true.

Re: The U.S. Gets Less Subway for Its Money Than Its Peers

#88

Post by JustAnotherPat »

ucaetano wrote: post #39

The US probably has the best, most efficient private sector of any developed country. And the worst, most inefficient public sector of any developed country. It chooses to prioritize the private sector over the public sector. Other countries choose otherwise. Each model has its advantages and disadvantages. This (efficiency of building public transit) is the outcome of the US model.

We enter public sector with the expectations of the private one. Every public sector worker 'deserves' to be high middle class, which today is defined as 300k+ income easily, and we strive to have as many public sector workers as possible.

Re: The U.S. Gets Less Subway for Its Money Than Its Peers

#89

Post by stcredzero »

The U.S. also pays a lot for highways that don't have warranties. Last time I read something about it, German highways were procured with warranties. Italian highways didn't. Lots of people also grumbled that Italian highway building was plagued with corruption.
Post reply on HN