paperboat22 t1_jc6uk3n wrote
Reply to comment by ClarkFable in Results of municipal broadband feasibility study: City-owned Internet has big pluses and price tag by b00gerbear
The service is getting people to their destination. If they stop taking the T and still need to get to work, they're going to use one of those other options. Probably driving.
ClarkFable t1_jc72y7o wrote
You’re not wrong, but that’s a broader definition of competition than what economists typically use. To offer up an absurd example to illustrate this point, suppose I prevent you from all other means besides hovercraft of commuting to work, then I suppose you would take a hovercraft to work (if you HAD to get work), and therefore conclude a hovercraft must be competition with the MBTA (generally). Thus, we must first consider the closeness/substitutability of alternatives before deeming them as sufficiently competitive to be considered proper competition.
paperboat22 t1_jc73c3t wrote
In the end, I think we treat these agencies (public transit, mail, etc) too much like businesses and not like public services.
No one questions whether roads are making enough money because it's understood that they enable productivity in the areas they serve. Meanwhile we expect the T to pay for itself rather than act as a utility.
ClarkFable t1_jc74px4 wrote
>o one questions whether roads are making enough money because it's understood that they enable productivity in the areas they serve. Meanwhile we expect the T to pay for itself rather than act as a utility
I'll get slammed for saying this, but a big part of the problem with a non-competitive public service like the MBTA is that, in the long run, the unions and the contractors will extract all of the benefits from the system until it's too expensive to maintain. Thus, it becomes a never ending money pit.
But then again I don't really have any good answers to solve it.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments