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

Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line

seungylee14.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 71 posts

Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line

#61

Post by csdvrx »

toolcombinator wrote: post #56

And btw: This whole debate is outdated, and like something out of a socialist pamphlet ca 1995. Public vs. private transport has mostly been settled, and the private sector won. All over Europe and in much of the rest of the world, public transit is operated by private companies. (Usually with great results.) There’s no way governments would start nationalizing tens of billions of dollars worth of infrastructure in a…

> There’s no way governments would start nationalizing tens of billions of dollars worth of infrastructure in a time where finances are already stretched.

There is: the central bank printing press goes BRRRR

Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line

#62

Post by csdvrx »

bjeds wrote: 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 have a hard time following this article because it's so obviously one-sided and ranting.

Same. The author also discloses his own biases against privatization.

Given the other reports here of well-operating metros run by MTR, could it be that this one failed because of french technology and involvement? (side questions: are these other MTR metros also join ventures with french companies?)

I read on his blog that 2 french companies were involved: Veolia and RATP. During a short 2 weeks visit to Paris in 2019, I was shocked how bad the metro was, even when compared to NYC which has a similar aging infrastructure

I was not expecting something as shiny and comfortable as in DC, but the seats were minuscule, the stench overpowering at times, and the general decay made me feel queasy about health risks (even pre COVID!). I then learned what RATP means for Parisians: "Retre Avec Tes Pieds" ("Walk Home")!

I also note a pictures captioned as "Line 9 employees on strike in 2017, holding the sign “Hold the French corporations responsible!”" so given my personal experiences and the employees signs, I'd first suspect french incompetence over "privatization can't work".

Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line

#63

Post by danhor »

toolcombinator wrote: post #56

And btw: This whole debate is outdated, and like something out of a socialist pamphlet ca 1995. Public vs. private transport has mostly been settled, and the private sector won. All over Europe and in much of the rest of the world, public transit is operated by private companies. (Usually with great results.) There’s no way governments would start nationalizing tens of billions of dollars worth of infrastructure in a…

> All over Europe and in much of the rest of the world, public transit is operated by private companies. (Usually with great results.)

Speaking for Europe, primarily Germany: The infrastructure is usually public (or via a company, owned by the state). Local transit planning is usually also public and only (sometimes) operated by private companies, which bid on a tender offered by the state. Busses can be often private, but train (tram, subway) operation are more primarily operated by some public entity (even more so if the ones operated by other countries are counted).

Long distance transit can have private entities even creating their own schedules, but most service is performed by publicly owned entities (with rail).

There are many companies owned by public entities (even competing), which I'd count as public.

I think almost are all long distance busses are private.

In Austria and Switzerland, the top countries in regard to rail things in europe, almost nothing is private.

Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line

#64

Post by BrandoElFollito »

csdvrx wrote: post #62
bjeds wrote: 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 have a hard time following this article because it's so obviously one-sided and ranting. Same. The author also discloses his own biases against privatization. Given the other reports here of well-operating metros run by MTR, could it be that this one failed because of french technology and involvement? (side questions: are these other MTR metros also join ventures with french companies?) I read on his blog that 2…

"Rentre Avec Tes Pieds" is not a common name for RATP (I heard it only once) and it is related to the strikes everyone is fed up with.

But yes, our metro is not the shinest part of the capital.

Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line

#65

Post by dnautics »

Hokusai wrote: post #14
dnautics wrote: 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.

That makes sense, but it's a moving target. The company will optimize for the metrics at the cost of everything else. Private but paid by public funds is always a tricky place to fall into.

yeah, pick the metrics well. For something like public transport, you can probably pick effective metrics so that they can't really be goodhearted. Anyways, it seems to work for singapore (which of course has other incentives, like cars are super-disincentivised).

Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line

#66

Post by seoulmetro »

scaramanga wrote: post #20
snidane wrote: post #3

Great article. Introducing privatization into networks and expecting solving the centralized government laziness by markets ia a bit naive since on networks you won't have competition. You are only introducing a market of 1 monopolistic player. At that point thr outcome is the same - the uncompeted excess profits being eaten by a corrupt government or by a monopoly company. If you want competition on networks then co…

Yes, it should be noted that if you live in somewhere like the UK or the US, the "bad" lines, 9 and 2, are technical and organisational marvels with no parallel in your country. From the end user standpoint they operate amazingly well. They're cheap, clean, safe, reliable, convenient. They're crowded at rush hour. Line 9 is so crowded at rush hour that there was this one time, a few weeks ago, that I wasn't able to g…

Waiting for the next one is a common thing in most countries. At least once or twice. Korea included.

Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line

#67

Post by seoulmetro »

mlindner wrote: post #16
snidane wrote: post #3

Great article. Introducing privatization into networks and expecting solving the centralized government laziness by markets ia a bit naive since on networks you won't have competition. You are only introducing a market of 1 monopolistic player. At that point thr outcome is the same - the uncompeted excess profits being eaten by a corrupt government or by a monopoly company. If you want competition on networks then co…

Japan has multiple lines that go between the same stations that are privatized. Works perfectly fine there.

Japan's metro is an actual mess. Doesn't work perfectly fine, but it is definitely good for a private network of old lines.

Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line

#68

Post by seoulmetro »

em-bee wrote: post #36
aga98mtl wrote: post #24

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.

They failed immensely when they didn't raise the subway fare alongside the minimum wage earlier in the last few years.

That was the perfect time. It's incredibly cheap still.

Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line

#69

Post by seoulmetro »

scaramanga wrote: post #27
Fizzadar wrote: post #2

Fascinating story that highlights the issues with privatised transport systems (or worse: mixed private/public). Reminds me of the clusterfuck that is the British rail network. That said, the Northern and Central tube lines (London) are often crowded/hellish like this and are public, I dread to think how awful the tube would become if privatised!

I can tell you that line 9 is nothing like the the privatised transport system in the UK (I have lived most of my life in UK, and 7 years in Seoul). It costs about 65p to ride, 75p for the express train, it's clean, safe, comfortable, modern, spacious. The stations are accessible, welcoming, and full of conveniences. Transferring to or from a bus is free. Ticketing is contactless, convenient, uniform across the whole…

Closer to 80p to ride, No other country comes close, even Japan, to the public transport of Seoul.

Living in the UK, it's constant fear of being suffocated, melted or pushed onto the tracks at peak. In Korea it's basically just social troubles.

Re: Lessons from Seoul's controversial privatized subway line

#70

Post by More-nitors »

scaramanga wrote: post #44
bjeds wrote: 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.…

> this ownership structure was setup as a grift for juicing citizens

...which is poorly done (minus profit)

Post reply on HN