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

101–110 of 179 posts

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

#101

Post by jorblumesea »

twblalock wrote: post #75

This ultimately has to come back to voter standards. Other first-world countries in Europe and Asia manage to create comprehensive public transit systems cheaper and faster than the US does -- yet they also have environmental reviews, safety standards, unions, contractors, etc. They are able to do it simply because the people running the city fear that they won't be reelected if they fail to provide comprehensive, pr…

Here in the US voters don't punish any elected officials for anything because half don't vote and the other half that do are more concerned about their side "winning" and less concerned about practical day to day considerations like corruption.

People would gladly accept a corrupt Democrat over a Republican and vice versa purely based on political lines.

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

#102

Post by bradleyjg »

jorblumesea wrote: post #101
twblalock wrote: post #75

This ultimately has to come back to voter standards. Other first-world countries in Europe and Asia manage to create comprehensive public transit systems cheaper and faster than the US does -- yet they also have environmental reviews, safety standards, unions, contractors, etc. They are able to do it simply because the people running the city fear that they won't be reelected if they fail to provide comprehensive, pr…

Here in the US voters don't punish any elected officials for anything because half don't vote and the other half that do are more concerned about their side "winning" and less concerned about practical day to day considerations like corruption. People would gladly accept a corrupt Democrat over a Republican and vice versa purely based on political lines.

NYC voted in a Republican for mayor in 1993, 1997, 2001, 2005 and sort-of in 2009 (he ran on the Republican line, but wasn't a party member).

To contrast that with partisan affiliation when it comes to national politics, the last time NYC went for a Republican presidential candidate was 1924 for Calvin Coolidge.

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

#103

Post by pcurve »

narrator wrote: post #99
twblalock wrote: post #75

This ultimately has to come back to voter standards. Other first-world countries in Europe and Asia manage to create comprehensive public transit systems cheaper and faster than the US does -- yet they also have environmental reviews, safety standards, unions, contractors, etc. They are able to do it simply because the people running the city fear that they won't be reelected if they fail to provide comprehensive, pr…

Why does it cost 1 billion dollars a mile to build a subway in San Francisco? Where are all the costs coming from? It's the same with healthcare. Nobody knows why it's so ridiculously expensive. I wish they could hire some smart forensic accountants to figure out what is behind the ridiculous cost and then actually fix the problems by replacing the guys who are price gouging or work with the government to change regu…

Agreed, but the article does explain why it costs absurd amount cost per mile. Unnecessary roles that don't reflect modern construction techniques, high union labor costs, regulations, and concession to people to minimize quality of life disruptions, etc. I'm all for fair wages, but $110+/hour or $225,000/year? Give me a break. You'd have lines going out to NJ if they open up the job to everyone at $85,000/year.

I work in healthcare and we all know WHY it costs outrageous amount here in the states, but nobody wants to fix it because EVERYBODY has his or her finger in the pie.

Yes, price gouging is a problem, but it's only side effect of a bad system. Healthcare is expensive because there are too many damn fingers in the pie, and nobody wants to pull his or hers out first.

Doctors, hospitals, private insurance, drug distributors, medical device makers, lawyers, pharma, pharmacists, physical therapy center. Guess what all these entities have? IT, HR, Sales & marketing, etc.

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

#104

Post by ams6110 »

twblalock wrote: post #75

This ultimately has to come back to voter standards. Other first-world countries in Europe and Asia manage to create comprehensive public transit systems cheaper and faster than the US does -- yet they also have environmental reviews, safety standards, unions, contractors, etc. They are able to do it simply because the people running the city fear that they won't be reelected if they fail to provide comprehensive, pr…

The USA is pretty big and has a lot of sparsely populated area compared to Europe. People living outside major metro areas don't care about public transit, because public transit only works and makes sense in dense urban areas.

So people in Upstate New York don't care about mass transit in NYC, and so the representatives they elect to NY state government don't care about it.

Public transit honestly is not even on my radar of issues I care about, because where I live it makes no sense at all.

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

#105

Post by shard972 »

bradleyjg wrote: post #102
jorblumesea wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in the US voters don't punish any elected officials for anything because half don't vote and the other half that do are more concerned about their side "winning" and less concerned about practical day to day considerations like corruption. People would gladly accept a corrupt Democrat over a Republican and vice versa purely based on political lines.

NYC voted in a Republican for mayor in 1993, 1997, 2001, 2005 and sort-of in 2009 (he ran on the Republican line, but wasn't a party member). To contrast that with partisan affiliation when it comes to national politics, the last time NYC went for a Republican presidential candidate was 1924 for Calvin Coolidge.

> 2009 (he ran on the Republican line, but wasn't a party member).

You aren't talking about "let's ban smoking and soft drinks" bloomberg are you?

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

#106

Post by altstar »

jorblumesea wrote: post #101
twblalock wrote: post #75

This ultimately has to come back to voter standards. Other first-world countries in Europe and Asia manage to create comprehensive public transit systems cheaper and faster than the US does -- yet they also have environmental reviews, safety standards, unions, contractors, etc. They are able to do it simply because the people running the city fear that they won't be reelected if they fail to provide comprehensive, pr…

Here in the US voters don't punish any elected officials for anything because half don't vote and the other half that do are more concerned about their side "winning" and less concerned about practical day to day considerations like corruption. People would gladly accept a corrupt Democrat over a Republican and vice versa purely based on political lines.

Not quite. Alabama voted for a Democrat last year. They are normally red.

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

#108

Post by shard972 »

narrator wrote: post #99
twblalock wrote: post #75

This ultimately has to come back to voter standards. Other first-world countries in Europe and Asia manage to create comprehensive public transit systems cheaper and faster than the US does -- yet they also have environmental reviews, safety standards, unions, contractors, etc. They are able to do it simply because the people running the city fear that they won't be reelected if they fail to provide comprehensive, pr…

Why does it cost 1 billion dollars a mile to build a subway in San Francisco? Where are all the costs coming from? It's the same with healthcare. Nobody knows why it's so ridiculously expensive. I wish they could hire some smart forensic accountants to figure out what is behind the ridiculous cost and then actually fix the problems by replacing the guys who are price gouging or work with the government to change regu…

What about if it's just government waste/corruption mostly? Who is going to be able to hire someone to say that with such authority that things change?

EG: We find out that 30% of road costs are being wasted by nepotism/contracts given to mates. I just can't imagine how it would work that someone could point it out and anyone would even care.

If the county hired him, he wouldn't get any coverage.

If the state government did, they would probably just bury it to cover their own ass.

The federal government maybe, but then you have issue of jurisdiction and dealing with 50+ audits at once and trying to explain to every state voter about what is happening in their state.

Only other option is independent watchdogs or companies but it still like it would be almost impossible to be even get a proper view of the real corruption from that angle as the government would never let you close enough to the deal making process.

In the end, I really don't know how you can overcome the losses due to government corruption unless voters make significant changes in their behaviour. That or just wait for a whistleblower to blow the lid off it all in some spectacular way.

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

#109

Post by api_or_ipa »

ams6110 wrote: post #104
twblalock wrote: post #75

This ultimately has to come back to voter standards. Other first-world countries in Europe and Asia manage to create comprehensive public transit systems cheaper and faster than the US does -- yet they also have environmental reviews, safety standards, unions, contractors, etc. They are able to do it simply because the people running the city fear that they won't be reelected if they fail to provide comprehensive, pr…

The USA is pretty big and has a lot of sparsely populated area compared to Europe. People living outside major metro areas don't care about public transit, because public transit only works and makes sense in dense urban areas. So people in Upstate New York don't care about mass transit in NYC, and so the representatives they elect to NY state government don't care about it. Public transit honestly is not even on my…

Pretty tired of "$REGION is too big and sparsely settled for transit" argument. British Columbia is over 2x the size of California, with about 1/10th the population but the city of Vancouver, the only large urban area in the province, has consistently high transit usage and investment. In fact, projections for transit usage have understated the growth in transit usage.

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

#110

Post by philwelch »

altstar wrote: post #106
jorblumesea wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in the US voters don't punish any elected officials for anything because half don't vote and the other half that do are more concerned about their side "winning" and less concerned about practical day to day considerations like corruption. People would gladly accept a corrupt Democrat over a Republican and vice versa purely based on political lines.

Not quite. Alabama voted for a Democrat last year. They are normally red.

Even that was close, and the Republican candidate was a child molester on top of being an incompetent wingnut. It takes a LOT to sway American voters.
Post reply on HN