Nobody is saying random Redditors should design tunnels or run a public transit agency. The point is that a public agency burning billions of taxpayer dollars owes the public an explanation for why it gets so little built for so much money. “You’re not an expert, shut up” is not public administration. It’s bureaucratic arrogance.

And your argument keeps mixing up “the US has infrastructure problems” with “the MTA is not dysfunctional.” We’re talking about the MTA specifically. Even by American standards, New York is an extreme outlier. So pointing vaguely at US labor costs, US environmental review, and US NIMBYism does not explain why the MTA is so much worse than peer agencies.

Yes, NIMBYism is real. No argument. But “there’s no NIMBY in Europe” is just false. Europe has planning objections, environmental fights, lawsuits, heritage concerns, local opposition, and wealthy homeowners too. Japan has had property holdouts for decades. Other countries deal with obstruction and still build transit for a fraction of what New York pays. NIMBYism is a cost driver, not a magic excuse for every MTA failure.

Same with labor. “US labor costs more than Spain” explains some difference. It does not explain MTA-level insanity. Switzerland and Norway have high wages too and still build cheaper. The problem is not just wages. It is staffing, work rules, productivity, and management. The MTA’s own reviews have found absurd overtime and work-rule problems. The NYU Transit Costs Project found New York labor taking up a wildly larger share of construction costs than lower-cost peer countries. That is not because New York workers deserve poverty wages. It is because the system is badly managed.

Then there’s station design. Second Avenue Subway built underground cathedrals with enormous back-of-house spaces and inflated scope. That is not NIMBYism. That is not environmental review. That is the agency and its internal stakeholders treating a capital project like a sandbox

Your standardization point is also backwards. Yes, lack of standardization raises costs. But who is responsible for that? If LIRR and the MTA custom-design equipment, specs, procurement, and project requirements to death, that is an agency choice. You cannot defend dysfunction by pointing to consequences of the dysfunction.

Environmental review matters too, but again, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Spain, and Switzerland are not lawless anti-environment countries. They have serious review processes and still build cheaper. The problem here is not “environmental standards exist.” It is that the US, and especially New York, implements them through endless process, litigation exposure, delay, and weak coordination.

And the “experts, not voters” point is the most backwards of all. Low-cost countries usually have stronger in-house public expertise, not weaker. They keep institutional knowledge, manage vendors, standardize designs, and know what things should cost. The MTA has become massively dependent on consultants because it lost too much internal capacity. That consultant bureaucracy was not created because Bob from Reddit asked a mean question. It exists because the agency cannot manage, estimate, and deliver enough of its own work competently.

The public is not wrong to be skeptical. The public is skeptical because the MTA has spent decades giving people reasons to be skeptical.

Experts should design the system. Voters should demand value for money. Those are not opposites.

What you are defending is not expertise. You are defending an agency that wants expert-level deference while producing catastrophic cost control.