[Henry10]

And who says that CT Govt has to pay for it?? We’re so stuck to the old mindset of lumbering bureacracies of State-owned transit behemoths. Those are dead-ends long term. The answer is privatization.

[RunD1987]

Originally Posted by Henry10

And who says that CT Govt has to pay for it?? We’re so stuck to the old mindset of lumbering bureacracies of State-owned transit behemoths. Those are dead-ends long term. The answer is privatization.

Don't think they can privatize the train and bus services in CT. Though could privatize a shuttle or light rail from Hartford to Bradley Airport.

Also maybe privatize a Fast Track private road bus line from Hartford to New Haven.

Maybe a private highway around Hartford or Privatize I-91.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Henry10

And who says that CT Govt has to pay for it?? We’re so stuck to the old mindset of lumbering bureacracies of State-owned transit behemoths. Those are dead-ends long term. The answer is privatization.

The problem with privatization is that the service has to be profitable and no mass transit system in this country is that. IF it were, the government would not have had to take over mass transit in the first place. The costs push fares well beyond the reach of most of the systems users. Even President Trump's call for using public/private partnerships for rebuilding infrastructure is questionable. If it was profitable to build and operate highways, private industry would have long ago gotten involved. Jay

[wetnewspaper]

Originally Posted by JayCT

The problem with privatization is that the service has to be profitable and no mass transit system in this country is that. IF it were, the government would not have had to take over mass transit in the first place. The costs push fares well beyond the reach of most of the systems users. Even President Trump's call for using public/private partnerships for rebuilding infrastructure is questionable. If it was profitable to build and operate highways, private industry would have long ago gotten involved. Jay

Agreed. The profit motive- when it comes to providing accessible public services-doesn't square with what is best for the general welfare of the people. A sound, modern, and government-funded transportation system can help lay the groundwork for economic activity and business. Just look at metro Boston- with the T and the MBTA Commuter Rail.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by Henry10

And who says that CT Govt has to pay for it?? We’re so stuck to the old mindset of lumbering bureacracies of State-owned transit behemoths. Those are dead-ends long term. The answer is privatization.

We've covered this before no public transportation systems in the US are profitable and never will be. The roads are not profitable either and are subsidized. Even if we put tolls in place the roads will still be a net loser. Its the price we pay to live in an organized society. I don't want to have roads and traffic like India.

The day we have jet packs for everyone we can abandon the roads and public transportation. We'll probably get the jet packs just after flying cars.

"Who'll build the roads" "The statist are unimaginative"

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4613321/going-roads

[Henry10]

Transit is in a checkmate. Lack of funds on one hand, and on the other hand unsustainable cost structures, such as wages, benefits, retirement, etc.

In current system, does anybody really have any hope to get out of this headlock? Of course not.

After WWII US and Japan went two very different ways in public transportation. US went the state-owned way, Japan went the private way. Two opposite systems.

After 50-60 years, Japan's system is modern, efficient, while the American is bad and getting worse.

You can read more here --

https://www.citylab.com/transportati...k-so-well/389/

https://www.thoughtco.com/public-tra...d-cons-2798647

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by wetnewspaper

Agreed. The profit motive- when it comes to providing accessible public services-doesn't square with what is best for the general welfare of the people.

This is not 1750. To even debate on how much progress and QOL a profit-making enterprise generates, in comparison to non-profit -- this is silly.

In terms of public service, and general welfare -- you can make the argument that every industry provides accessible public services. How about Food producing? Isn't that a necessity? Shouldn't that all be state-owned and no profit allowed? What about telephone companies? Why did we privatize those ones?

Unless bound to ideological nonsense, and economic ignorance, such as "profit is bad" -- there is really no reason why the transportation shouldn't be private.

In CT's case, it is probably the only way I see forward.

Originally Posted by MrGompers

We've covered this before no public transportation systems in the US are profitable and never will be. The roads are not profitable either and are subsidized. Even if we put tolls in place the roads will still be a net loser. Its the price we pay to live in an organized society. I don't want to have roads and traffic like India.

Japan is not an organized society? Or Singapore? No govt-owned industry is efficient, all are subsidized, and with worsening service levels.

Asking the Govt to own and even run a industry is a misuse of a precious resource -- Govt. Transport is no exception.

[Lincolnian]

Public transit is the key to future growth. It is inconceivable to continue to funnel substantially more traffic on existing roads. It is impractical to take additional land, with a few exceptions, in a place like Connecticut to accommodate growing traffic of personal vehicles. Our size and geography limit our growth if roads are the only plan for meeting the transportation needs of an expanding population. Elevated light rail lines could be run along the median or adjacent to existing highways and in many cases tied into existing/unused rail lines. For example, lines from Amtrak stations in Windsor/Windsor Locks could also be tied into extension lines to/from Bradley Airport.

Partnerships/incentives could be created with private businesses and state/federal agencies which fund longterm transportation loans backed by state/federal government but funded by private businesses and individuals. These loans would be at zero interest with a straight principal repayment amortized over periods as long as 50 years. In exchange for the loan the businesses/individuals would receive a credit toward any state/federal tax liabilities. The period of the credit could be amortized at a different schedule such as over 10 years either straight or accelerated depending on the size of the loan and/or project being funded.

[RunD1987]

Quasi private-public transportation service probably be best, but would never happen. It would work with CT. It would lower CT dent funding less for transportation services. Can bid to multiple companies to run and maintain bus services in the State. Like in Japan the Government regulates them and collaborates the collection of bus fares into one system. Same can go for a rail service in CT.

With CT many highways almost run parallel to each other. Could privatize a highway and have tolls running up & down the highway. The highway be maintained by the private company but winter services be provided by the State.

[GoHuskies]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Transit is in a checkmate. Lack of funds on one hand, and on the other hand unsustainable cost structures, such as wages, benefits, retirement, etc.

In current system, does anybody really have any hope to get out of this headlock? Of course not.

After WWII US and Japan went two very different ways in public transportation. US went the state-owned way, Japan went the private way. Two opposite systems.

After 50-60 years, Japan's system is modern, efficient, while the American is bad and getting worse.

You can read more here --

https://www.citylab.com/transportati...k-so-well/389/

https://www.thoughtco.com/public-tra...d-cons-2798647

Privatization in Japan only works for the inner city Tokyo trains like the subway. Outer rail lines were initially nationalized because private companies couldn't afford to run them. Today a mix of local governments run the lines with private ownership the exception, not the norm.

US railroads were privately owned as well post WWII but ridership and freight declined in the face of automobiles so the government stepped in to save passenger service with the creation of Amtrak. At the city and state level the government also stepped in to bail out failing rail lines. It might be possible to privatize rail again for the US but it would probably only work in high volume routes like the NEC or California. Kiss goodbye all long haul routes. Privatize Metro North or NY MTA and see the end of 24 hour service and reduction of off peak trains.