Nobody expects the NYC subway to "break even or even turn a profit." The subway historically recovers less than 50% of its operating expenditures from fares, compared to 70% for Berlin, 88% for Amsterdam, and over 100% in Tokyo, Taipei, Hong Kong, and Singapore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio.

MTA is broke because it costs several times as much for MTA to do anything compared to its counterparts in other Europe: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-....

It's also interesting how people don't see public roads in the same way—people don't expect roads to cover their own expenses directly, expect free parking as a human right and bridle at toll roads or gasoline taxes.

People need to see public transport as "roads that don't need cars".

In Tokyo, the rail transit system (including subways) is operated by a network of private companies. These train operators make a net profit from fares and other revenues, and the system is generally well liked by its customers. Even if the idea of privatization makes you cringe, the idea that public transit is inevitably a money pit or loss leader is misguided.

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/10/why-tokyos-pr...

Absolutely -- and you can see this even in the article. They talk about raising fares and cutting service, with no acknowledgement that their primary source of income shouldn't be fares, and their primary budget cuts shouldn't come from reduced service.

This article from last year does a much better job of covering how things have gotten to the state they're in - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-...

> There seems to be an obsession in the west with making public transport pay for itself

Not a crazy idea considering how some systems operate in the East - Tokyo, Osaka and Hong Kong systems not only pay for themselves, but churn out profits along the way. Singapore’s MRT is designed to operate at break-even.

The trick is to allow the transportation authority to own and manage its own real estate. This way when a new station or line is built out, the sharp increase in land value is captured by leasing the space above it to a giant mall, office complex or a mixed-use megacomplex like Roppongi Hills.

The US model seems to reward random real estate developers who just happened to own the land near the future station. It also seems to frown upon the idea of concessions or any commercial exploitation - for instance, San Jose or San Francisco Catrain stations receive more foot traffic than many commercial centers in the area, yet choose to wow their visitors with a mediocre coffee stand and a dirty bathroom.

The ideas you're saying are quite common in the West, as you say, but that's not the attitude in NYC. Everyone realizes it's worth funding and fixing. The disputes are about the who, what, how, and paid by whom.

NYC wouldn't last a week without its subway and light rail. Everyone uses it, except maybe for the billionaires who have private helicopters. Its critical infrastructure just as sewage system and powerlines.

Japan is doing pretty well I believe because they privatized the transportation system and set up the incentives so the better the transportation does the more profit the transportation company makes.

The Tokyu Corporation (one of the 10 or so companies running trains in Tokyo) is currently building several 20 to 40 story buildings in Shibuya, one of which Google Japan will move into next September. They make money renting the building all of which are next to their station

Right? The economics of fare enforcement are a great illustration of this. It's probably more efficient to just abolish fare collection altogether.

I am not sure why you intend it to make a loss, even though I agree with you on benefits to the economy.

Once a public transit system is convenient and is used by a large percentage of the population, let's say 30-90%, then it will surely be profitable except if it's grossly mismanaged.

Incidental tip: buy stocks of Hong Kong public transit companies, they're doing amazing.

OTOH, if you let go any rationalization for its cost, then you get 2 billion dollar bills for bus stations that don't work. (SF transit center).

I agree with you in principle, but in practice, attempting to break even puts some accountability on the system. If it’s a money pit, then taxpayers are getting cheated. I strongly support national defense, but if you want an example of a public good that is a money pit, that’s a good example. A P/L statement on public transport helps prevent endless spending without accountability.

It’s not bad for the service to fund itself in ongoing costs, Transport for London is self-sufficient for instance, as long as the money goes back into the service. That’s a good discipline to maintain an efficient service. But agree that initial capital investments should be thought about in the way you’re discussing.

Public transport in Singapore is privatised (well less of it has been as of last year) and it's the cheapest, cleanest, and most reliable system in operation today.

Why it drives the economy compared to private trasport?

Except you are deadly wrong. Your interventionism ideas area probably thanks to a dead economist.

How about seeing that once the Subway was private and ran well and it ended up the way it did thanks to state intervention trying to make the subways out of business and then buying it out?