VISTA Bus service shutting down. (San Francisco, Oxnard: to buy, school, college)

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

Freeways and roads are heavily subsidized -- eh, socialized since the Government owns them. Parking is free to car owners. Hmm....

Freeways and roads are built and maintained with tax dollars and benefit everyone even if they don't own a car. Ideally, you'd support roads and freeways with fuel taxes so people pay proportionally for them. Public transit works differently, if not done right (e.g., the Vista bus service) you're going to get huge subsidies to one population at the expense of another.

You have to look at the cost per ride (not the ticket price)...what is it for the Vista bus service? That information is.....not readily available. Why?

[Winston Smith]

Originally Posted by user_id

Freeways and roads are built and maintained with tax dollars and benefit everyone even if they don't own a car. Ideally, you'd support roads and freeways with fuel taxes so people pay proportionally for them. Public transit works differently, if not done right (e.g., the Vista bus service) you're going to get huge subsidies to one population at the expense of another.

Unfortunately, fuel taxes do not cover the cost of road building and maintenance, so property taxes are needed. So someone like me, who owns several properties, does not have a commute, ride my bike more than drive a car, am subsidizing car drivers. Though I tend to be left-of-center economically, I am actually a proponent of privatizing some highways. I would like to see the trucking companies own certain roads. A conglomerate of the biggest firms would take ownership and control all aspects of, maintaining them, setting speed limits, policing them, providing emergency services for them, give priority to the trucking companies who own the most shares, and charge a toll to anyone who wants to use them (cars, MCs, RVs, joyriders, vacationers, whomever). This would get the government out of this very costly socialized venture by a degree or two.

Originally Posted by user_id

You have to look at the cost per ride (not the ticket price)...what is it for the Vista bus service? That information is.....not readily available. Why?

A little leg work would get you the info. The ticket prices (cash, passes, etc.) are very easy to find out. The cost of the contract and operating costs are public record, discussed monthly at the VCTC's meeting. Ridership levels for each route are monitored and recorded. You can get the monthly meeting minutes online going back years and years.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

So someone like me, who owns several properties, does not have a commute, ride my bike more than drive a car, am subsidizing car drivers.

No you aren't...... What are you doing with those properties? Let me guess...renting them out? In which case you're paying taxes on behalf of your tenants who are undoubtedly using the roads directly or indirectly.

Funding on public roads and highways is pretty equitable......people pay, roughly, in proportion to their use (direct or indirect).

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

A conglomerate of the biggest firms would take ownership and control all aspects of, maintaining them, setting speed limits, policing them, providing emergency services for them, give priority to the trucking companies who own the most shares, and charge a toll to anyone who wants to use them (cars, MCs, RVs, joyriders, vacationers, whomever).

Yes....because giving large businesses monopoly power over key resources has proven to be so successful in the past....right?

Hey....maybe we should deregulation electrical generation, etc too? Oh wait......

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

A little leg work would get you the info.

Right.....I would have to estimate the information myself because its not publicly available despite being one of the key measures in determining the success of a public transit project.

[Winston Smith]

Originally Posted by user_id

No you aren't...... What are you doing with those properties? Let me guess...renting them out? In which case you're paying taxes on behalf of your tenants who are undoubtedly using the roads directly or indirectly.

The point is, my property taxes pay for roads -- because fuel taxes don't cover it. My renters drive cars and also pay the fuel tax. Don't forget.

Originally Posted by user_id

Funding on public roads and highways is pretty equitable......people pay, roughly, in proportion to their use (direct or indirect).

No it isn't. Case and point: me! We don't like to admit it, but roads and highways are socialism to the highest degree! We all pay taxes for them whether we use them or not, and the government owns the stock and delivery.

Originally Posted by user_id

Yes....because giving large businesses monopoly power over key resources has proven to be so successful in the past....right?

Hey....maybe we should deregulation electrical generation, etc too? Oh wait......

Again, I'm generally against privatization, but not in this case. I support trucking companies owning some highways. Not all, but some. Let's get a little competition into the playing field, give my property taxes a break and let those who need the roads pay for them! If I use the goods and services transported on those private roads by private trucking companies, then I pay my share through the cost of those goods and services. I would not have to pay taxes for something I don't use. We do this with railroads. Why not other roads?

Originally Posted by user_id

Right.....I would have to estimate the information myself because its not publicly available despite being one of the key measures in determining the success of a public transit project.

Don't be so lazy. Does the government have to do everything for you? Crunching numbers to get the results you want is always the case with government stuff, but no one is hiding the data from you, as you suggested earlier. Take some initiative and get the data you need. All of the numbers are public record.

By the way, one of the "key measures" to success of a public transportation system is called "fare-box ratio." A 25 percent "fare-box ratio" is considered good. VISTA's Santa Barbara route has a 50% fare-box ratio. A fare-box ratio of less than 10% will usually get a line discontinued.

[Winston Smith]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

You got me Winston,

The people that I know that ride the VISTA mostly work in the Santa Barbara area, all are making great money, own cars that they leave at the Mall or Government center I think. One thing that it is doing is keeping plenty of cars off the roadway. You have to admit that all those people would probably be driving to work by themselves if they didn't ride the bus. So we have determined a big benefit here.

In your example of public parks, roadways, highways, restrooms, Schools, and Prisons they all have a benefit to the majority of people. we are taxed and the money is used for everyone. Not that it is used efficiently. Our prison system could be revamped. Our school systems need changes made to make them more efficeint. Still the services unlike the bus system, are serving a majority of people and not the few.

Thanks, Soon2b. Here in a country where the automobile is king, it's sometimes hard to get our mind around it, but buses and passenger trains a key components to a wholesome transportation system. Such a system also includes roads and private autos, trucks, planes and ships. All of it requires tax subsidies. Airports and shipping ports are not private. They are owned either by municipalities directly, or by government "special districts," not unlike school, park and college districts. Public busses are no different. They are a public good. In the case of VISTA, it is directed by the government, but contracted out to a private entity for the delivery. A true "public-private" partnership.

What I sometimes wonder about is streets and highways that don't have much traffic. Why are we spending millions of dollars per lane-mile for streets that hardly have any cars? One solution: shut them down for car use and turn them into bike and pedestrian paseos. They would require a lot less maintenance that way.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

The point is, my property taxes pay for roads -- because fuel taxes don't cover it.

Okay, but I never said that fuel taxes cover it....I said ideally they would.

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

No it isn't. Case and point: me! We don't like to admit it, but roads and highways are socialism to the highest degree! We all pay taxes for them whether we use them or not, and the government owns the stock and delivery.

I realize that its common to misuse the word "socialism" in American politics...but can we not do it here?

Government ownership of an asset doesn't amount to "socialism" and there are very good reasons for the government to own certain sorts of infrastructure. What sort? The sort that aren't competitive.

If company X (or group of companies XYZ) owns the roads and highways what incentive do they have to maintain them? To charge reasonable rates? etc....none. There is no competition...they have an monopoly on the resource and do whatever they please.

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

Don't be so lazy. Does the government have to do everything for you?

Umm......are you seriously suggesting that the government shouldn't supply voters with easy to understand information about the programs it runs?

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

By the way, one of the "key measures" to success of a public transportation system is called "fare-box ratio." A 25 percent "fare-box ratio" is considered good. VISTA's Santa Barbara route has a 50% fare-box ratio.

This ratio just tells you how much the lines are subsidized, low fares aren't necessarily a bad thing. But where are these numbers from?

[Winston Smith]

Originally Posted by user_id

Okay, but I never said that fuel taxes cover it....I said ideally they would.

Right, and since fuel taxes don't cover the costs that cars and trucks impose, those forms of transportation must be subsidized. Let's not lose that fact: car drivers -- like bus riders -- receive handsome tax subsidies beyond the fees they themselves pay into the system at the fare-box -- and at the gas pump.

Originally Posted by user_id

I realize that its common to misuse the word "socialism" in American politics...but can we not do it here?

It's not a misuse of the word. We can, and do socialize many things in America.

Originally Posted by user_id

Government ownership of an asset doesn't amount to "socialism" and there are very good reasons for the government to own certain sorts of infrastructure. What sort? The sort that aren't competitive.

Socialism means government ownership and control! That's what the word means. My point is if the railroads can be private, why not trucking roads? But you are correct, of course. Highways and the individual car-driver transportation model is NOT profitable, which is the reason it needs subsidies -- just like public transportation. Not only that, while we criticize Amtrak for not being profitable (whatever that means) and expect rail passengers to put up with private freight companies dictating travel priority and inconvenience, private car drivers would never stand for that on the highways. Because of this, even Americans car drivers would rather have a socialized highway system over a private one.

Originally Posted by user_id

If company X (or group of companies XYZ) owns the roads and highways what incentive do they have to maintain them? To charge reasonable rates? etc....none. There is no competition...they have an monopoly on the resource and do whatever they please.

Well, this is all theory, of course, but to play it out in the mania of privatization: the incentive would be that they are not under government scrutiny. Trucks can do whatever the trucking companies want. They could build the roads strong enough to handle the 120,000 gross weights that they want (currently it's 80,000 pounds), longer combination vehicles, etc. They could build the roads for higher speeds if they wish. Why not, the roads are theirs? If you or I want to use them, we pay a fee. This is exactly what the railroads do.

Originally Posted by user_id

Umm......are you seriously suggesting that the government shouldn't supply voters with easy to understand information about the programs it runs?

The info is not hard to find.

Originally Posted by user_id

This ratio just tells you how much the lines are subsidized, low fares aren't necessarily a bad thing. But where are these numbers from?

Fare-box ratio IS the measure. For VISTA you can get the info in the minutes of the monthly VCTC meetings. I'm not sure that it's discussed every month, but it is discussed and recorded. This is the measure used. And by the way, the nice thing about VISTA being a public entity, the figures are transparent. How easy do you suppose it would be to get Greyhound's numbers, or revenue figures from the airlines? Huh, not likely.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

Right, and since fuel taxes don't cover the costs that cars and trucks impose, those forms of transportation must be subsidized.

You are trying to conflate "tax funded" with "subsidized", not all tax funding amounts to subsidies. No form of taxation is perfect, you're never going to perfectly correlate use with taxes and therefore under your logic every tax dollar spent is a "subsidy".

Everyone in the nation uses the roads and highways either directly or indirectly and everyone pays for them and what they pay is fairly proportional to their use. If a public transit system can be created so that it benefits society as a whole then.....that is fine. But often public transit systems are created that benefit a small number of people and are paid for by everyone else, that is one group of society is subsidizing another.

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

It's not a misuse of the word. We can, and do socialize many things in America.

Of course it is, socialism is a particular governmental system where the government owns the means of production. Government ownership of a particular asset in an overall capitalist economy doesn't amount to "socialism", that is just a common smear tactic in American politics.

"Socialize" has a different meaning that "socialism".

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

But you are correct, of course. Highways and the individual car-driver transportation model is NOT profitable, which is the reason it needs subsidies -- just like public transportation.

Huh? I claimed no such thing. Whether or not highways could be profitable had nothing to do with my response, instead I pointed out that allowing private ownership of roads and highways would result in monopoly power that would be abused.

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

Well, this is all theory, of course, but to play it out in the mania of privatization: the incentive would be that they are not under government scrutiny.

umm...huh?

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

For VISTA you can get the info in the minutes of the monthly VCTC meetings. I'm not sure that it's discussed every month, but it is discussed and recorded.

So you don't have a citation?

[Winston Smith]

Originally Posted by user_id

You are trying to conflate "tax funded" with "subsidized", not all tax funding amounts to subsidies. No form of taxation is perfect, you're never going to perfectly correlate use with taxes and therefore under your logic every tax dollar spent is a "subsidy".

Everyone in the nation uses the roads and highways either directly or indirectly and everyone pays for them and what they pay is fairly proportional to their use. If a public transit system can be created so that it benefits society as a whole then.....that is fine. But often public transit systems are created that benefit a small number of people and are paid for by everyone else, that is one group of society is subsidizing another.


Of course it is, socialism is a particular governmental system where the government owns the means of production. Government ownership of a particular asset in an overall capitalist economy doesn't amount to "socialism", that is just a common smear tactic in American politics.

"Socialize" has a different meaning that "socialism".


Huh? I claimed no such thing. Whether or not highways could be profitable had nothing to do with my response, instead I pointed out that allowing private ownership of roads and highways would result in monopoly power that would be abused.



umm...huh?


So you don't have a citation?

Of course, no. And do your own research. In the time you spend screwing up this dialogue you could have had your answers and maybe contributed something useful to the discussion.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

Of course, no. And do your own research.

So I'm suppose to research the numbers that you cite? Ummm....no.

So as far as we know the figure you cited is entirely made up.