Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's a good argument in support of publicly funded public transport because of the positive externalities it produces, but the value of those and then some can also be lost if it is administered too inefficiently. The private sector will invest too little, the public sector will do a really bad job of administration and resource allocation, there's a balance to be struck in supporting public investment where the opportunity for positive externalities are the greatest and privatizing public routes where administrative malfunction has gotten the worst and is intractable under the local government.
On what basis do you have that the public sector is more "inefficient" than the private sector? You do realize that UPS and FedEx are so much less inefficient than USPS that they have to use the USPS for some of their package deliveries?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALackOfCreativity
Depends on location really. In the northeast, AMTRACK is profitable, and only loses money on the whole because it is forced to subsidize underutilized and money-losing routes in other parts of the country. Similarly, the NYC subway runs roughly at break-even -- if the MTA wasn't so overpaid relative to similar private-sector workers it would be hugely profitable (or you could lower fares). Go out into the 'burbs and private bus lines aggressively compete with the public ones.
Privatized public transit works if there is sufficient density to support it.
Privatized transit is not going to be more efficient than public, period. And MTA workers are not overpaid. People in the private sector are simply underpaid (except CEOs).
On what basis do you have that the public sector is more "inefficient" than the private sector? You do realize that UPS and FedEx are so much less inefficient than USPS that they have to use the USPS for some of their package deliveries?
Again talking the NYC metro, while the subway runs at about cost the average bus trip (costs the same as a subway trip) costs three times the ticket fare. Meanwhile, that ~33% coverage of costs by fares on the city buses is an average -- there are routes doing far, far worse than that. Running a ton of routes with few riders who wouldn't be willing to pay near the sticker price for them at cost is the very definition of inefficiency.
Meanwhile, cross the river to NJ and some of the most profitable and high demand bus routes are so underserved that you will see more private buses plying them than public since the public system is leaving so much money on the table and demand unmet.
At least around here, the public sector has completely failed in the task of determining which routes to run and how often.
Quote:
Privatized transit is not going to be more efficient than public, period. And MTA workers are not overpaid. People in the private sector are simply underpaid (except CEOs).
Everyone who uses the system ends up paying for the small number of people who win the open MTA position lottery -- and using the term lottery isn't hyperbole, because among the oversupply of people who want and test in when openings come up that's exactly how you get in.
Not necessarily. Studies have shown that Amtrak riders tend to have a higher than average income. The average salary of an on-board Amtrak worker is $41/hr, or $82,000 per year, which is significantly higher than the US average of about $50,000.
Yet each boarding is roughly 50% subsidized by the taxpayer. Hence you are taking money from the poor, to benefit the rich (or at least less poor). Arguably that is a form of elitism.
A lot of those riding the Acela are the 1%, no doubt. Amtrak is not for the poor or cheap (for example someone from DC having to attend a funeral in Harlem). Several bus lines pander to that market. But who knows how much of our citizens time is being wasted by lack of high speed rail in this country. Most civilized countries realize this and have invested money into high speed rail. London to Paris travel is a lot slower by plane or road than train.
That said, I support the "All Aboard Florida" high speed rail project. If it succeeds, it could (as one suggests) lead to the second and third High Speed line.
A lot of those riding the Acela are the 1%, no doubt. Amtrak is not for the poor or cheap (for example someone from DC having to attend a funeral in Harlem). Several bus lines pander to that market. But who knows how much of our citizens time is being wasted by lack of high speed rail in this country. Most civilized countries realize this and have invested money into high speed rail. London to Paris travel is a lot slower by plane or road than train.
No one is opposed to mass-transit or mass anything. We get our news and entertainment from mass-communications (TV). Most of what we buy and consume is made better and cheaper due to mass production. And we tend to find out about these products through mass marketing.
The problem with mass transit, & public transit in particular, is the business model that results in overly inflated costs. The user only pays part of the cost, and the taxpayer picks up the rest. Thus Amtrak spends $16 to produce a cheeseburger that they sell for $9.50, and reportedly is not even very good. Or some 1%er riding the Acela is getting a part of his ticket paid for by a construction worker in Kansas making $50,000/yr.
What is needed is a new model where those who use the service, pay for the service.
No one is opposed to mass-transit or mass anything. We get our news and entertainment from mass-communications (TV). Most of what we buy and consume is made better and cheaper due to mass production. And we tend to find out about these products through mass marketing.
The problem with mass transit, & public transit in particular, is the business model that results in overly inflated costs. The user only pays part of the cost, and the taxpayer picks up the rest. Thus Amtrak spends $16 to produce a cheeseburger that they sell for $9.50, and reportedly is not even very good. Or some 1%er riding the Acela is getting a part of his ticket paid for by a construction worker in Kansas making $50,000/yr.
What is needed is a new model where those who use the service, pay for the service.
Good luck with that, we don't do that now with our infrastructure for cars, so it probably will never happen with public transit as well.
Counterpoint: central planning frequently works and the market often fails. See: every depression/recession, every bankruptcy, the previous time we had private transit which is what we were talking about, health insurance, the environment, food safety. Claiming that railroad/other businesses would work if only we allowed them to keep their workers in virtual slavery is A) not true, and B) a terrible idea even if it were.
There you go again. Trying to formulate both sides of the debate. You are the only one who mentioned slavery. That's not part of a free market solution. In fact, slavery has always been part of a government solution.
All of those things on your list were government regulated and controlled.
On what basis do you have that the public sector is more "inefficient" than the private sector? You do realize that UPS and FedEx are so much less inefficient than USPS that they have to use the USPS for some of their package deliveries?
That's another one of your lies. First, they don't "Have to use the USPS". They Choose to use the USPS. Have you ever been to a post office? Why do you think we have thousands of neighborhood Kinkos making money and delivering better service at a lower price.
Quote:
Privatized transit is not going to be more efficient than public, period. And MTA workers are not overpaid. People in the private sector are simply underpaid (except CEOs).
Yes, it is. Private with free markets is always more efficient than government.
At least around here, the public sector has completely failed in the task of determining which routes to run and how often.
Central planning always fails because it requires that a bureaucracy make decisions based on what they think is best for consumers (or for themselves). Free markets match the products with the needs of consumers.
We tried this in Florida on I595 highway project and it worked quite well. The private company footed the 1B bill and completed the project in a fraction of time compared to public option estimate. The private company is not collecting the tolls which are volunatary (4 lanes free each direction + 3 resersible express lanes for 50 cents to beat the traffic. Tax payers paid nothing.
Randall O'toole is nothing more than a crook funded by the oil industry who constantly whines about anything that would actually be good for the country in terms of Urban planning/ Transportation, while completely ignoring the fact that that oil is ridiculously subsidized.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
