Post by D.F. MannoPost by Clark F MorrisPost by D.F. MannoPost by Clark F MorrisWhy shouldn't the user of a service be the person who pays for it?
Assuming that the government provides the road or track, then
shouldn't the fare box at least cover operating costs?
It shouldn't because it can't. If fares had to cover operating costs,
they'd be so high no one could afford to ride, and then the system
collapses.
The idea that fares should cover operating costs is only proposed for
mass transit and intercity rail. Airlines and highways are somehow
exempt.
Operating costs are the costs of operating the vehicles. So far as I
know the airlines (other than the essential services ones) cover
operating costs and by rental fees at least some of the airport costs.
The automobile user isn't subsidized for gas, oil, maintenance,
insurance, and vehicle maintenance. Also bus riders get the same road
subsidies as automobile drivers and passengers. Even more where the
transit vehicles are exempt from fuel taxes.
That's a rather narrow definition of "operating costs." Who pays to
maintain roads, bridges, traffic signals, etc.? Without those things, an
automobile user isn't going anywhere.
And in the case of bus transit, those costs aren't being covered
either. That is especially true in states where the buses don't pay
fuel excise taxes.
Post by D.F. MannoWho pays for air traffic control, airport security, etc.? Without those
things, an airline isn't getting off the ground.
Those are right of way costs, not operating costs. In the case of
transit, the tax payer is paying for the vehicle, the right of way be
it road or rail and those other elements. In many cases local
municipalities are providing train stations for Amtrak and/or local
commuter rail with or without rental payments.
Post by D.F. MannoPost by Clark F MorrisPost by D.F. MannoThe rationale for government support of mass transit is that it benefits
the economy (by providing low-wage workers an affordable means of
getting to their jobs) and the public as a whole (less pollution from
autos, less traffic for drivers to contend with, etc.).
So should wee be subsidizing affluent Wall Streeters and Main-line old
or new money Philadelphia area commuters?
What part of "the public as a whole" didn't you understand?
In the case of schools, I would agree with you. In the case of
subsidizing the more affluent of our working society to a greater
extent than the less affluent I'm looking at it more carefully. Even
where the per mile subsidy is less, because of the longer trips the
overall subsidy is greater than that given the local transit rider. In
addition this is subsidizing urban sprawl (granted that much of the
sprawl being subsidized is a century old).
Clark Morris