There’s another aspect to the platter system which deserves a little thought. The rules put into play at the higher, overarching levels need to be the most useful to the most people. If they are too specific, they set the lower platters, or ecosystems of exchange, a kilter, setting up rules to counter act the rules.
Take a subway system as an example. The governance and maintenance of the infrastructure is managed as a system for a large population. The NY subway handles over 3 million rides a day. So in terms of setting user fees, the calculation is done with inclusivity in mind, pricing so as to be accessible to the most people, in this case of upwards of 20 million residents
User fees work well in carrying the cost of water delivery, but come up short in paying for sewer line replacement. User fees in subway systems are also insufficient in maintaining the physical structure. In sewer lines it is easy to assign the replacement cost to each dwelling. In metro stops it is less clear who should pay.
As different locations benefit to different degrees from their proximity to the subway stop and the line, who benefits the most from a particular piece of the system is more difficult to identify. But those who enjoy its use the most, are also those who are most likely to be agreeable to paying a surcharge in order to preserve its use.
Similar to the example of waste water removal, the daily patrons at any metro stop are the most likely to realize a tangible benefit. Another way to put it is the people who use the property, apartment towers, businesses, shoppers, office complexes, realized a benefit and hence receive an increased value in rents, level of employee employee satisfaction, and so on. Wouldn’t it be great is there were price signals to tell us how much they would be willing to pay?
Being able to price out the maintenance expense would realize another mid-level platter efficiency. The building owners who do not value the proximity to the subway, and hence would find the maintenance assessment a burden, would be incentivized to leave the property. There maybe ten other desirable aspects to their building keeping them in place. Hence they stay put neglecting the benefits of mass transit.
But if the market value expense of subway maintenance were great enough, the building owner may move five blocks away from the subway line where some combination of the ten other features would maximize their needs. By not have to pay for the line, which they don’t value, they voluntarily relinquish that space to others who value it more.
When new construction goes in, the cost of putting in sewer lines, roads, curbs, and so on are built into the price of the purchase. Developers are only able to go forward with a project if there are buyers who would pay for the package– including infrastructure costs. Last time I checked, these ran around $25-30K per household in Minnesota.
If all the decision making is done at the largest, most encompassing level of cooperative agreements, then then there is a glossing over of the pockets where the benefits are compounded. Infrastructure is an amenity to an entire city, and those who travel to see it. But to afford such a significant amenity, the details of all the various levels of users and daily riders could be better understood.