One year after TSPLOST's defeat (job market, luxury, school)

[cqholt]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Private buses like the one on Buford Highway are cheaper than MARTA. The private street car lines that used to cris-cross Atlanta were a nickle in the early 1900s (About a $1.50 today) .



I don't think a sign by the side of the road is going to break the bank. But I am fine charging for use of facilities.

No, but the taxpayers of Fulton and DeKalb counties, and city of Atlanta did pay for that and if a private company wants to use it, they should pay a fee. Nothing is free in this world, except for roads.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by cqholt

No, but the taxpayers of Fulton and DeKalb counties, and city of Atlanta did pay for that and if a private company wants to use it, they should pay a fee.

I am agreeing with you. If a private company wants to use a public bus stop they should pay a fee per use.

Originally Posted by cqholt

Nothing is free in this world, except for roads.

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Airports (That are not already private) and the FAA are funded by user fees paid when you buy a ticket. Government is not subsidizing airlines. In fact international agreements prevent it (beyond a few really small domestic airports): Open skies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The FAA is not completely paid for by user fees. The last figure I saw said 74% was. Also, I see nothing in that link that says the government can't subsidize airlines.

And how profitable do you think housing would be if the government were building houses with tax dollars and giving them away for free? Even if the private build house were in a better location and was better preferred, few would be able to "afford" hundreds of thousands over a free government one.

Your apples to oranges comparisons make no sense especially since transportation isn't given away for free like I've repeated seemingly a hundred times now, and don't apply and you know it, now you're just starting to troll.

Transportation is not special in this regard. Moving people around is very profitable. Plane Travel: Airline Profits To Hit Record High | TIME.com

Again, that's because of the subsidized airports and FAA. Take a look at essential air services for instance.

Why not even let government own the roads and rails, pay for them with user fees, and have private businesses run the trains and busses? Even if you think airports are being subsidized you should be able to agree to that as working.

It might work, but it was and still is a pretty big disaster when the UK privatized its rail network like that. Even so, many of those train operating companies are still fairly heavily subsidized, it's indirect of course, but it's still taxpayer dollars over there, going to pay for the trains.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by MattCW

The FAA is not completely paid for by user fees. The last figure I saw said 74% was. Also, I see nothing in that link that says the government can't subsidize airlines.

Your apples to oranges comparisons make no sense especially since transportation isn't given away for free like I've repeated seemingly a hundred times now, and don't apply and you know it, now you're just starting to troll.

Again, that's because of the subsidized airports and FAA. Take a look at essential air services for instance.

It might work, but it was and still is a pretty big disaster when the UK privatized its rail network like that. Even so, many of those train operating companies are still fairly heavily subsidized, it's indirect of course, but it's still taxpayer dollars over there, going to pay for the trains.

EAS only goes to really tiny airports and basically none of the large profitable airlines take advantage of it.

I think we are closer than you think. I know that there are challenges effective collecting funding for transportation today. I am not saying that we should hand over everything to companies without consideration. However, I do think we would benefit from collecting as much highway funding as possible from gas tax and tolls.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Private buses like the one on Buford Highway are cheaper than MARTA. The private street car lines that used to cris-cross Atlanta were a nickle in the early 1900s (About a $1.50 today)

So, a taxpayer subsidized MARTA ride today costs a dollar more than an inflation adjusted non-taxpayer subsidized street car ride in the early 1900's. Hmm. Take away the taxpayer subsidy, and how much would a MARTA ride cost? My guess is that the poor couldn't afford it. So, we take PUBLIC transit and turn it into PRIVATE transit for the more fortunate. I just don't think that is is a societally conscionable decision.

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

So, a taxpayer subsidized MARTA ride today costs a dollar more than an inflation adjusted non-taxpayer subsidized street car ride in the early 1900's. Hmm. Take away the taxpayer subsidy, and how much would a MARTA ride cost? My guess is that the poor couldn't afford it. So, we take PUBLIC transit and turn it into PRIVATE transit for the more fortunate. I just don't think that is is a societally conscionable decision.

The correct conclusion is true free-market competition drives down price more than the current subsidies MARTA is getting. This experiment has already been tested in housing. Better to give the poor vouchers than try to have the government build housing projects.

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by jsvh

The correct conclusion is true free-market competition drives down price more than the current subsidies MARTA is getting.

Prove it. Show us a business plan where paying the entire cost of a transportation network's costs with your oh so vaunted user fees actually works while lowering prices. Dive into MARTA's financial records and reconfigure them to show us numerically how it would work. Heck, I'll be nice with this challenge. You can assume the ridership won't change at all.

This experiment has already been tested in housing. Better to give the poor vouchers than try to have the government build housing projects.

Care to show us this testing and its results? I'm not being snarky, if it works, I'd like to see this test.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by jsvh

The correct conclusion is true free-market competition drives down price more than the current subsidies MARTA is getting. This experiment has already been tested in housing. Better to give the poor vouchers than try to have the government build housing projects.

So you are not proposing truly privatized public transport? Are you advocating giving the poor vouchers financed by the taxpayers like housing Section 8 vouchers are?

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Prove it. Show us a business plan where paying the entire cost of a transportation network's costs with your oh so vaunted user fees actually works while lowering prices. Dive into MARTA's financial records and reconfigure them to show us numerically how it would work. Heck, I'll be nice with this challenge. You can assume the ridership won't change at all.

No. You prove otherwise. I have given multiple examples where user-fees / private transit works better than in the past. You prove why those are a fluke. Also, ridership is higher on private transit services because they have an incentive to attract more customers and increase their profit. Compare private transit services and see.

Originally Posted by MattCW

Care to show us this testing and its results? I'm not being snarky, if it works, I'd like to see this test.

So you prefer housing projects and feel they were a success?

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

So you are not proposing truly privatized public transport?

Yes, as it is already effective other places and was in America's past. This requires roads being 100% user fee funded.

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

Are you advocating giving the poor vouchers financed by the taxpayers like housing Section 8 vouchers are?

A Basic income would be the best solution.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by jsvh

A Basic income would be the best solution.

What would be the criteria for being given a basic income?