Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="henry6"] [quote user="Sam1"] Any capital project (public or private) must be funded, as is true for its operations.    Someone has to pick-up the tab.  If the users don't pay for it, then the non-users (taxpayers in the case of public projects), almost always within the hoist country, have to pick-up the difference.  ..... .....  This is the fundamental reason why I believe that government should only build transport infrastructure if it can recover the cost through user fees, and why it should stay out of operations all together. [/quote] But herein lies the question none of us can answer: what is the role of government in social and commercial life?  Was Roosevelt wrong with the CCC projects, etc.that built highways and bridges which enabled the country to get through WWII and helped the prosperity (of the automobile, suburbia, industry and commerce) that followed the War?  Or Eisenhower with his Federal Highway Program . projects which contributed greatly allowed for both the publice and the truckers to travel coast to coast on four lane highways at 70 to 90 mph?  Or the St. Lawrence Seaway project which eliminated many east coast port activities in favor of the Great Lakes?  The next question is that just because someone can't find a quick return on investment or the investment is too big a risk for the individual, does that mean a project like damming a river for hydro power, or building a highway between two points, or an airport, or harbor facilities, or running a police department or any other municipal services, should be projects that don't get done or services that are not rendered?  The question, Who is going to pay?, has a lot more question behind it, and a lot more answers than just "us". [/quote] For most of the projects that you have listed, i.e. federal highway program, St. Lawrence Seaway, airports, etc., the government(s) have recovered the cost of the projects through user fees or taxes paid by most of the users who are also taxpayers.   I am not optimistic that high speed rail or any form of passenger rail can recover its operating expenses let alone the capital investment. How and for what the government(s) should spend the people's monies is a legitimate debate.  But government spends on transport projects, as an example, or any other spend for that matter, have to be recovered one way or the other.  This is beyond debate, at least for anyone remotely familiar with finance.  A government sponsored spend,  without a game plan to recover the costs, is a guarantee for more debt.  Like California, the U.S., UK, etc.!   And the cost to service the debt can have a dramatic impact on the quality of life for everyone.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag