And in things without a stock price, like the MTA. Isn't the second avenue subway exactly what you get when there's exactly one player in the game?

Eh, in the Bay Area we have plenty of public transportation agencies / systems (which all coordinate really poorly with each other), and none of them are great (though some are more cost-efficient than others, e.g. Caltrain vs. Bart).

None of them compete, effectively, since they’re in different coverage areas.

Except for bart, basically. And I certainly treat bart and MUNI as competitive products for commuting to work, although it doesn’t feel like MUNI does...

BART and MUNI have fundamentally different orientations, despite overlapping service along the Market Street subway.

BART's service is long-train (up to 10 cars) through service on fully dedicated trackways following a single through route within San Francisco. If you happen to be transiting any points between Colma and Embarcadero strickly along that route, BART is your best bet.

MUNI Metro serves multiple endpoints throughout San Francisco, several lines of which transit the upper level of the Market Street subway. Outside that route, the metro shares rights of way with street traffic, resulting in drastically less predictable schedules. The requirement to manage tight-radius curves and street traffic also limits the length of metro trainsets to a maximum of two coupled trolleys.

The results aren't pretty, for MUNI. But that's all but a given under the environment they're operating in.

>The results aren't pretty, for MUNI. But that's all but a given under the environment they're operating in.

Not necessarily. They could exclusively run fast 4 car trains along the length of the subway, with transfers to street lines. That would prevent a single street-level train from backing up the whole system. http://newmunimetro.com/m-market/

That's a possibility, though there's a long history of transit users prefering through routes rather than transfers. If Muni could maintain 4 minute headways (or shorter), consistently, in the subway, that might be an option. It would reduce the wait times inbound on the subway to an average of 2 minutes, which is tolerable.

You still end up with the service irregularities on the surface sections, unless those rights of way are dedicated. Something which really should have happened long ago on Geary and Irving/Judah, 3rd St., etc. Maybe with the dedicated transit route on Market the idea will spread.

Extending the subway further out is another option, though expensive and fairly unlikely.

But do they actually compete? Whenever I see privatized public transport it seems the systems cover different areas and in practice you either have only one real option or you have to pay for all options, neither of which leads to actual competition.

My understanding is in Tokyo they compete a little - that is there are a few people who are within walking distance to two different private operators. However even there most people are only really within talking distance of one line.

With land based transit competition it is really hard to compete because land within walking distance is finite. (if you don't demand walking distance you get less riders by a lot). Thus to have real competition you need to have extremely high density - 50 story apartment buildings with few parks or other open space, at that point one line cannot handle all the riders and a second line can compete.

I think the MTAs woes are unique to the MTA/management of the MTA and not lack of competition. Paris and Madrid have no problem building and operating trains at reasonable costs even though they also operate with no competition.

I'd argue the problem is endemic to large stationary organizations, but some do a better job than others at keeping it at bay.

It's interesting to wonder why. I think one aspect is the degree to which politically powerful are willing to fight it. Famously Stalin actually cared that the Moscow metro worked well, and it did, in a country otherwise crippled by complacent behemoths.

Perhaps the Parisian elite likewise take more pride in having a metro which works OK, are willing to spend more political capital fighting for it. They feel some obligation to keep up with Brussels & Berlin, perhaps that substitutes for competition?

I would kill for second avenue subway in 99% of America. It only sucks in Manhattan. MTA is the worst, except it’s also the best mass transit in the country.

If we could build subways for about of half the current low price by world standards (Spain or Turkey) cost most cities would have subways. However since New York "insists" on paying about 7x what Spain would for the same amount of subway it is just barely worth it to build the SAS, and anything with even slightly less ridership potential is a waste of money.

I have seen a lot of explanations of why the US pays so much more - they tend to not hold up. Note that last time congress asked the question the bill did not allow examining non-US construction for the report - something to write your congressman about.

> However since New York "insists" on paying about 7x what Spain would for the same amount of subway it is just barely worth it to build the SAS, and anything with even slightly less ridership potential is a waste of money.

Literally any amount spent on the subway will be returned in rent to landlords. You're just looking from the wrong perspective.

Not sure why you're downvoted. MTA basically has a license to print money. Their expenses keep growing while the service keeps deteriorating and fares increasing. They are very poorly managed and awarded the contract with no competition. The MTA has become too big to fail.

> Stock price is valued as more important than choice for the consumer.

By who? And why should those that value it more than choice for the consumer value choice for the consumer more? And how would they even go about doing that?

If you have cash to speculate, liquidate now- American market is going to take a dip in January with Boeing, which will be a good opportunity to re-invest.