cycling in Poland

On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 15:10:11 -0600, DougC
wrote:

On 12/13/2015 1:35 PM, AMuzi wrote:
,,,,
There is no passenger rail system in the USA which breaks even on
operations (current operations, not counting the capital equipment and
system and future retirement obligations etc). People may differ on
whether that's a good thing or not and whether or not more is better.

Mass-transit is government spending, and it isn't supposed to make a
profit.
The ideal purpose of government spending (IMO) is to do one of two things:
1) push money into the economy, or-
2) provide a service that will facilitate economic activity, when the
cost of the service itself is prohibitive for private industry to
provide. Which amounts to a similar result as #1 above.

The fact that mass-transit runs at a loss is not something I consider to
be a problem--in fact, that's the whole point of it. If it made a profit
would indicate that it was displacing private economic activity.

But businesses, even government run businesses, simply cannot run at a
loss.... they wouldn't be able to pay the help. So a government
function that doesn't make a profit simply increases the taxes that
are paid.

Singapore, as one example, runs government services to make a
profit... the result is that they have a very low tax rate.

Still, I find it odd that most all examples charge people to use public
mass transit at all; if the governments wanted people to save
money/prevent traffic by using it, then why charge anything? Make it
free to ride. People actually USING it was the whole point of the thing.
Use a ID card to track who rides, to monitor actual use.

Another factor different in the USA is the geographical distances that
are typically crossed. Europe, Japan and even the northeast US have a
lot of towns packed close together. A lot of the rest of the US isn't
that way.
--
cheers,

John B.

ok to break even. Goal here is support.

On 12/13/2015 2:35 PM, AMuzi wrote:

There is no passenger rail system in the USA which breaks even on
operations (current operations, not counting the capital equipment and
system and future retirement obligations etc).

AFAIK, there are almost no freeways, bridges, ferries, ordinary highways
or city streets that break even on operations. Taxes pay for those,
with the understanding that it's worthwhile to society as a whole.

As I understand it, taxes didn't always pay for those things, either.
In days of yore, farmers were supposed to maintain the roads near their
farms, and sometimes sort of did that. Streets were unimproved
corridors of mud. And if you wanted to cross a river, you paid a guy
with a boat, or perhaps paid a more enterprising guy who had built a bridge.

Then some bike riders started a "Good Roads" movement, intended to
convince the government that it made sense to use taxes for
transportation facilities.

Most - but not all - governments now include rail lines as part of those
transportation facilities.

Now, I suppose we could consider reversing the logic, and make all roads
toll roads. If we did that based on accurate estimates of the damage
done by road users, bicycling might gain significant popularity.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 22:28:49 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 12/13/2015 2:35 PM, AMuzi wrote:

There is no passenger rail system in the USA which breaks even on
operations (current operations, not counting the capital equipment and
system and future retirement obligations etc).

AFAIK, there are almost no freeways, bridges, ferries, ordinary highways
or city streets that break even on operations. Taxes pay for those,
with the understanding that it's worthwhile to society as a whole.

As I understand it, taxes didn't always pay for those things, either.
In days of yore, farmers were supposed to maintain the roads near their
farms, and sometimes sort of did that. Streets were unimproved
corridors of mud. And if you wanted to cross a river, you paid a guy
with a boat, or perhaps paid a more enterprising guy who had built a bridge.

Then some bike riders started a "Good Roads" movement, intended to
convince the government that it made sense to use taxes for
transportation facilities.

Most - but not all - governments now include rail lines as part of those
transportation facilities.

Now, I suppose we could consider reversing the logic, and make all roads
toll roads. If we did that based on accurate estimates of the damage
done by road users, bicycling might gain significant popularity.

Ah, but then the bike lanes would all be pay as you go :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

Am 13.12.2015 um 22:10 schrieb DougC:

Still, I find it odd that most all examples charge people to use public
mass transit at all; if the governments wanted people to save
money/prevent traffic by using it, then why charge anything? Make it
free to ride. People actually USING it was the whole point of the thing.
Use a ID card to track who rides, to monitor actual use.

The purpose of user-charging government-funded public transport is
mostly one of allocating scarce resources. Can you imagine how it feels
to have 2000 people an a train designed for 1000?

If the trains are free of charge, you'll find them full of people who
don't contribute to the economy. If trains don't have peak-time surplus
charges, you'll find them full of people who might as well travel 2
hours later (that's a special Swiss problem).

Frank...thinking the Interstate System does't pay 'for itself' ....

On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 8:58:02 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Frank...thinking the Interstate System does't pay 'for itself' ....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/15/te...=71480105&_r=0