How to Run a Profitable Metro System. Build It in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong's privately owned metro, the MTR
Hong Kong’s privately owned metro, the MTR

by James A. Bacon

I’ve been harping a long time on the idea that rail mass transit is hopelessly uneconomical as practiced in the United States. Projects are subject to massive capital cost overruns, and they exact a heavy toll from taxpayers to cover ongoing operating deficits. Some conclude from my withering criticism of the Rail-to-Dulles project that I am simply “anti-rail” or “anti-transit.” Nothing could be further from the truth. To the contrary,  I believe that the only way to ignite a rail renaissance in this country is to find a business model that makes it profitable.

Making mass transit the preserve of government is a sure-fire loser. Governments have so many stakeholders to satisfy, they don’t know how to run a profitable enterprise. Requiring mass transit to operate with a union workforce creates another drain on productivity and profitability. So does accepting money from the federal government, which imposes all manner of burdensome regulations.

What I couldn’t do before now is point to a profitable and privately run metro rail system. Now I can, thanks to a column written by Alex Marshall (who got his start covering transportation and land use at the Virginian-Pilot). Writing  in Citiwire.net, Marshall highlights the achievements of Hong Kong’s MTR metro system:

If you are ever lucky enough to visit Hong Kong, which is Manhattan-like with its narrow streets lined with high rises, you will see that the MTR’s services are excellent. You may ride the gleaming new high-speed rail line from the new airport that takes you into the new central rail station. Or one of the nine rail and subway lines, including the special train that goes to Disneyland Hong Kong.

What’s amazing about the agency that runs these lines, MTR, is that it actually makes money. So much money that it’s listed on the stock exchange, although the government still owns a majority share.

What’s the secret? Writes Marshall:

Hong Kong’s MTR doesn’t let private developers be the only ones that perch next to its stations. It builds its homes, offices and stores. In short, MTR acts as a real estate developer and business company, as well as a train operator. It owns, among other things, 12 shopping malls built around its stations. These properties and businesses produce substantial cash, which keep the transit agency as a whole in the black.

It’s similar to the way privately financed railroads funded intercontinental railways: The railroads increased the value of land near rail stations, and the railroads made their money selling that land. Later, private streetcar lines did the same thing. In the case of MTR, the company started as a government- owned enterprise and privatized in 2000.

Here in Virginia, we are dunning taxpayers, toll road commuters and commercial property owners to pay for rail improvements that will create massive windfall profits for a few well-situated landowners. We have handed over management of the enterprise to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, whose board decisions have displayed a startling contempt for fiscal prudence. What if Rail-to-Dulles had been conceived as a profit-making enterprise organized by major landowners who stood to reap billions of dollars in value from their real estate holdings? They would have designed a route and system that struck a balance between (a) keeping system costs down and (b) maximizing utility to passengers and value to landowners.

But what if such a consortium couldn’t pull it off? What if the numbers didn’t add up? Well, then, if the project can’t generate a competitive return on investment, perhaps it shouldn’t be built.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

4 responses to “How to Run a Profitable Metro System. Build It in Hong Kong.”

  1. The railroads made money selling land that was GIVEN to them by the government. It was and continues to be the biggest subsidy ever.

    If Hong kong owns much of the rail stock and acts as a developer and facilitator, what you have is not free enterprise system, but a socialist one.

  2. I couldn’t do before now is point to a profitable and privately run metro rail system. Now I can, thanks to a column written by Alex Marshall.

  3. well.. the history of the rail in the US is that companies that got into the rail business received enormous chunks of land in exchange for building the rails – way more than was needed for just right-of-way.

    If a private developer were offered a similar deal today – that they would build a rail or road transport system – as long as they were also allowed to buy, build and develop (using willing seller, willing buyer principles) pods that attached to that system?

    So …for example.. someone proposes to build and operate an alternate US 460 but they also get to decide where to put interchanges and buy local land for development ( but the road must operate to a defined LOS standard)?

    One of the things you see on a month-long tour of the country (selected locales) is the tremendous influence that rail had on the west.

    in the big sky wide open spaces… one can see multiple times a day in many locations … long, long, long trains …so long that they need multiple locomotives on the front – AND the back!

    and those trains are traveling on private right of way that in many cases they received for free or virtually free from the govt – way back when.

    and we even get some of those rights-of-ways back in the form of rail-to-trails.. which seem to be all the rage these days… for tourism in many states…

  4. agp1066 Avatar

    “…trains are traveling on private right of way that in many cases they received for free or virtually free from the govt – way back when….” Well, it’s time to put some truth against this myth. Some western railroads received extra land for building their rail lines, usually alternate sections of land on either side of their right of way. The government kept the other sections and made money when those were sold. But the railroads did not receive “Free” land. They had to provide transportation at half price for government goods and travelers. The railroads were not smart enough to get an agreement saying when the half-price transportation would end. So government got this free ride even on railroads that did not get “free” land for over 70 years! The government gave “free” to the railroads that was worthless until transportation was available. (And those areas that did not get a railroad service often did not develop until roads were built in the 1920s and ’30s.) The government made huge profits on these “free” lands as a result. The boondoggle ended when congress agreed to end the free transportation rip-off just after WWII by passing a law in 1945.

Leave a Reply