What’s fascinating to me about this history is that most of NYC’s subways system was built by two private competing firms, the IRT and BRT. The city then became heavily involved first by creating the competing but government financed IND, then with price controls, and finally a full takeover. Once it was a publicly owned monopoly the NYC Subway’s long decline began.
Pretty much the same thing happened in SF but with street cars instead of subways.
This is spot on and the same observation I had, yet I'm puzzled as to why it was downvoted. A system that profits simply runs better. The best rail systems in the world in Japan are for-profit.
The big difference is not for-profit status, but the fact that Tokyo's and Hong Kong's subway operators own much of the property around the stations, and make a ton of money leasing it: http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/30/news/hong-kong-mtr-subway-pr.... Economically that makes a lot of sense. Transit infrastructure creates a positive externality: it benefits not only the rider, but the shop or office that the rider goes to. NYC's MTA can only recover from one side of the transaction: the rider. JR and MTR, as major landlords around the stations, can recover from both sides, capturing some of the positive externality.
It's a little more complicated. The first NYC subway was built by the city and operated by IRT. Part of the IRT system was then built with private financing. Most of the system was built under the "dual contracts" with IRT and BMT, where the city designed and built the systems and the IRT and BMT operated them under lease: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_New_York_City_S....
That's not quite correct. The original subway lines were operated by IRT and BRT, but they weren't private ventures. The city paid to build most of the lines and leased them to the operators. The city always maintained majority ownership even when they brought in private investors.
Pretty much the same thing happened in SF but with street cars instead of subways.