Live data from Hacker News

Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line

seungylee14.substack.com

41–50 of 71 posts

Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line

#41
post #36

I'm confused by the article. The main problem is that the line is too popular because the government under estimated ridership? How does this have anything to do with it being privatized? When they tried raising prices the city fought them? Should you not raise pricing when you have more customer than capacity?

depends on your goals. when prices are raised then the poorer segments of the population, who are usually the ones that need public transport the most, may not be able to afford to ride. it's one thing to raise prices to cover costs, but quite another to raise them to reduce congestion.

My city does this with public roads… in the good old west coast USA.

Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line

#42
post #9

I have a hard time following this article because it's so obviously one-sided and ranting. FWIW the Stockholm Metro is also privatized in the sense that operation, planning and maintenance is done by MTR Corporation, the same company that owns and operates the Hong Kong Metro. MTR also operate a lot of other subway systems in the world, for example Sydney. I don't see any problems inherit in the privatization: Stockh…

As far as by privatization goes, I don’t much care for it with busses. But I’m having trouble seeing the issue here with the train, other than the financials which seem favorable to the corporation.

> the financials which seem favorable to the corporation.

well line9's profit is minus... (except for 2014 due to some accounting stuff...)

Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line

#43
post #9

I have a hard time following this article because it's so obviously one-sided and ranting. FWIW the Stockholm Metro is also privatized in the sense that operation, planning and maintenance is done by MTR Corporation, the same company that owns and operates the Hong Kong Metro. MTR also operate a lot of other subway systems in the world, for example Sydney. I don't see any problems inherit in the privatization: Stockh…

I was so confused of the flow of writing and one sentence made me understand what just happened. "I grew up in Seoul in the 1990s before coming to the United States, so I missed all of Line 9’s construction and operations." The media in South Korea have criticized any privatization of public service for so long time. Trust me I have lived in this country more than 25 years. Even though author asserted that "I will li…

so the guy never rode line9 and is writing this article... hmm-teresting...

And the article mentions "it's not economically feasible to add more cabinets due to the extra construction work required..."

...but the line9 stations are actually built to accommodate 8 cabinets (instead of current 6), and there are even screen-doors ready for those cabinets...

Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line

#44
post #9

I have a hard time following this article because it's so obviously one-sided and ranting. FWIW the Stockholm Metro is also privatized in the sense that operation, planning and maintenance is done by MTR Corporation, the same company that owns and operates the Hong Kong Metro. MTR also operate a lot of other subway systems in the world, for example Sydney. I don't see any problems inherit in the privatization: Stockh…

The rest of Seoul's transportation infrastructure is so well managed and universally liked that the problems with Line 9, taken in that context, make it look hysterically bad. I have to say that the labour issues sound awful, but as someone from the UK, the profiteering and overcrowding issues sound quaint and almost laughable. There's no doubt that this ownership structure was setup as a grift for juicing citizens. But from the perspective of a user, I would describe line9 as "more overcrowded at rush hour than the other lines" but on the flipside, the rolling stock and stations are newer and nicer...

The proposed price hikes were a scandal at the time and public outrage was tangible. But the relevant context here is that the Mayor of Seoul is second only to the president, and usually it is someone with aspirations to run for president. There's things a Seoul Mayor a cannot do if he likes votes, and one of those is piss off everyone who uses the metro (which is everyone).

I think with privatisation, it just depends on the specifics. If the system can be privatised without bilking the ridership, compromising safety, or abusing the employees then, by all means, have at it. But if you're writing from the US, or the UK, especially if you work within the transportation system, it's understandable that you would get ranty when you consider how badly privatisation has fucked things up there.

Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line

#45

I'm confused by the article. The main problem is that the line is too popular because the government under estimated ridership? How does this have anything to do with it being privatized? When they tried raising prices the city fought them? Should you not raise pricing when you have more customer than capacity?

No, it was that the government accurately estimated ridership, then unrealistically lowered that estimate later. The government was incentivized to lower this estimate because it lowered the amount of revenue that had to be guaranteed, and the builders were happy to use those estimates to cut costs and lower capacity. The case for privatization is partially built on avoiding state liability and accused inefficiency, and that very mindset motivated the lowered estimates that destined the entire project to failure.

So people got a incapable subway line when it could have been (and was) foreseen by everyone. The "solution" of raising prices to lower usage is not a good outcome for people whose taxes are guaranteeing revenue, and additionally, if raising prices didn't manage to lower ridership, it would be a reward.

In the end the government is liable for massive expenditures to fix or cover the problems of the "private" line. What was gained by privatization in this case, rather than just directly building the line, other than the guaranteed loss of any profit from it? It's another case of privatized profits and socialized losses.

Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line

#46
post #7

I don't understand why the operation of the line wasn't tied to performance along certain metrics, like "percentage of cars at overcrowding", customer satisfaction, etc. Annual review, Drop below acceptable threshold on any of these metrics and it triggers a rebidding process and someone else gets to run the line.

The canonical answer is of course the 1997 Asian financial crisis. The crisis greatly strained governmental and municipal budget available for pretty much every public infrastructure and the 1998 Act on Private Investment in Social Overhead Capital Facilities (사회간접자본시설에 대한 민간 투자법) was introduced to fill this gap. The problematic minimum revenue guarantee stems from this law, originally intended to encourage private i…

Was that part of IMF structural adjustments?

Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The canonical answer is of course the 1997 Asian financial crisis. The crisis greatly strained governmental and municipal budget available for pretty much every public infrastructure and the 1998 Act on Private Investment in Social Overhead Capital Facilities (사회간접자본시설에 대한 민간 투자법) was introduced to fill this gap. The problematic minimum revenue guarantee stems from this law, originally intended to encourage private i…

Was that part of IMF structural adjustments?

That is a common belief, yes, but I was unable to verify it from official documents, for example, the Letter of Intent of the government of Korea [1].

[1] https://www.imf.org/external/np/loi/120397.htm

Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line

#48

I can understand the privatization maximalists and - though it's harder - the minimalists. What's harder for me to get a hold on is the people who say some things - transportation, education, healthcare, housing - should be public and everything else should be private. I'd like an argument for why those things and not everything. Why buses and taxis? Why trains but not planes? What about boats? Why people but not goo…

Some things only make sense as a unified system, like, there can't easily be as many train lines and stations as there are potential competitors, because the value of the good is greatly increased if all the stations and lines link up together and aren't redundant.

Profit has to come from somewhere. In some cases, it can come from neglecting to maintain the infrastructure that the investors (usually the taxpayers) paid for to put you in business. Once the system collapses under the neglect, everyone is held hostage because the system is vital and then taxpayers are forced again at gunpoint to bail out the system. In the mean time, the profits of the mismanagement have been taken and are effectively unrecoverable.

The "politics" that comes in here is when people refuse to be robbed in this way and, instead, insist in a return on their investment (in the form of a functioning public utility). This is a consequence of democracy (fortunate or unfortunate, depending on your perspective).

Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line

#49
post #9

I have a hard time following this article because it's so obviously one-sided and ranting. FWIW the Stockholm Metro is also privatized in the sense that operation, planning and maintenance is done by MTR Corporation, the same company that owns and operates the Hong Kong Metro. MTR also operate a lot of other subway systems in the world, for example Sydney. I don't see any problems inherit in the privatization: Stockh…

The Stockholm metro is run by MTR, but they don't own it.

They're only staffing the trains and platforms, not to different from e.g. a police station paying a sub-contractor to sweep their floors and manage the reception desk. The police station is still mostly a government run thing.

For example, MTR doesn't invest any money in new lines/tunnels, or buy/maintain the trains.

I don't think it's fair to compare it to this Korean line, it's not apples to apples.

Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line

#50
post #9

I have a hard time following this article because it's so obviously one-sided and ranting. FWIW the Stockholm Metro is also privatized in the sense that operation, planning and maintenance is done by MTR Corporation, the same company that owns and operates the Hong Kong Metro. MTR also operate a lot of other subway systems in the world, for example Sydney. I don't see any problems inherit in the privatization: Stockh…

Wikipedia said:

> MTR Corporation Limited is a majority government-owned public transport operator and property developer in Hong Kong... > Owner: Hong Kong Government 75.09%, Others 24.91%

So I think MTR is still owned by government?

Post reply on HN