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

71–80 of 179 posts

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

#71

Post by bmelton »

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.

According to NationMaster[1], we're the 43rd most expensive. Notables that are more expensive than the U.S. include Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand, Denmark, France, Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Japan, Belgium, the UK, Canada, Austria, Italy.

Notables with cheaper groceries are Germany, Netherlands, Greece, Spain, Poland, Ukraine.

[1] - http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Cost-of-livin...

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

#72

Post by ceejayoz »

trophycase wrote: post #45
nostromo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$100k isn’t a high estimate at all. The article says they were costing $1k a day . > All we knew is they were each being paid about $1,000 every day.

Ok that's great and all but don't try to derail the major point which is that this pay is an extremely small fraction of the cost.

Surely you don't think that's the only opportunity in the entire system to siphon off money?

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

#74

Post by dpark »

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.

I’m pretty sure that’s not the case. My understanding is that the Scandinavian countries generally like their government and its level of efficiency as well.

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

#75

Post by twblalock »

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, properly functioning public transit. Voters there believe that providing public transit is one of the basic duties of government. It's amazing how streamlined a public project can become if the politicians fear for their jobs.

In the US, voters don't punish politicians for problems with public transit, even in places like New York where most people use it. So it's no surprise that it sucks.

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

#76

Post by indoordinosaur »

rco8786 wrote: post #38
jonknee wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Agenda much? Is anybody in this thread doing basic math? 200 ghost workers at $100K per year (probably a bit high, thanks) is $20 million per year. Did you bother to read the article? Right at the start it says these 200 workers "were each being paid about $1,000 every day".

That's still only $73mil/year. A small fraction of the billions.

Realize that these projects often take up to a decade. $730 million is a lot of wasted money and probably how much an entire line costs in some countries.

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

#77

Post by cryptoHash »

bsder wrote: post #31
Hasz wrote: post #6

NYT 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-...

Agenda much? Is anybody in this thread doing basic math? 200 ghost workers at $100K per year (probably a bit high, thanks) is $20 million per year. Um, so much for that causing the cost overrun. Project management is generally the failure. And, generally, it starts with the asinine "low bid" rules. Everyone successful at dealing with the government knows that you bid as low as possible to get the contract and then yo…

Hacker news is turning into an Angry place. Why did this get down voted?

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

#78

Post by indoordinosaur »

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.

I would argue that because healthcare is so regulated its more of a public sector thing. Also, an enormous amount of money going into the healthcare sector comes from public sources (medicare, medicaid, obamacare, etc.)

Note: I'm not saying regulation is bad. Just making the point that healthcare is really not a free-market in this country and never has been.

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

#79

Post by indoordinosaur »

wahern wrote: post #26
rebuilder wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm reading these articles and wondering: why do these unions have rules for e.g. the number of workers that must be posted to a specific task? Safety? It seems like a tremendously inflexible way to go about it. I'm genuinely curious btw. I wouldn't be surprised to hear it's a counterreaction to historically irresponsible employers, for example, but I do wonder about the rationale behind U.S. union rules as reported.

I can't find it ATM, but recently there was a good article that linked this phenomenon to the disappearance of unions. As unions disappear in the private sector they become increasingly dependent on the public sector to employ their laborers. Because union members vote and because unions so visiblly represent the working-class, in many cities the best way to be pro labor is to support union labor. In areas were union…

Basically, our transit system is welfare for employees made redundant in other sectors.

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

#80

Post by rayiner »

rco8786 wrote: post #38
jonknee wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Agenda much? Is anybody in this thread doing basic math? 200 ghost workers at $100K per year (probably a bit high, thanks) is $20 million per year. Did you bother to read the article? Right at the start it says these 200 workers "were each being paid about $1,000 every day".

That's still only $73mil/year. A small fraction of the billions.

The east side access project started in 2007 and is scheduled to go into service in 2023. At $73 million per year, that’s $1.16 billion, or almost 10% of the total 10 billion budget. Just for that one batch of ghost workers.
Post reply on HN