Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
<p>[quote user="schlimm"]</p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <div><img src="/TRCCS/Themes/trc/images/icon-quote.gif" /> <strong>dakotafred:</strong></div> <div></div> <p>Sam1 quote: </p> <p>City streets and county roads are funded with property taxes. </p> <div style="clear:both;"></div> <p> </p> </blockquote> <p> </p> <p>Sam1 is off the mark here. It's true that a lot of work on strictly residential streets is borne solely by the adjacent property owner. (Although a prosperous town like my Bismarck, N.D., usually helps out with city sales-tax money.) But I guarantee you, feeder or arterial streets in every state are on a state DOT list that is helped out with federal funding, usually to the tune of 80 or 90 percent -- same as out on the highway.</p> <p>The point is BIG federal bucks behind concrete, and who cares if the arterial in Bismarck -- or I-94 across North Dakota -- covers its expenses? The justification is transportation. (Even the New York or Florida driver would miss I-94 if it turned into a cow path at the N.D. state line.) In the same way, corridor passenger rail can be justified in places like North Carolina, when it so obviously serves a public purpose.  </p> <div style="clear:both;"></div> <p>[/quote]</p> <p>Nicely put, Fred.  What seems to always get lost in these discussions is public interest/purpose.  Some people seem to think the only decision factor to consider is profit.  sam1 mentions using the fine public transit in Melbourne.  Is that a public agency or private enterprise?[/quote]</p> <p>Public transport in Melbourne was privatized in the late 1990s.  The tram system, commuter rail system, and local buses were privatized after having been run by the government for decades.  With dire financial consequences!  </p> <p>The operators bid on the systems that they wanted to run.  They are awarded long term contracts with stringent performance criteria that they have to meet.  If they do so, they receive incentive payments.  If they don't meet the performance criteria, they do not receive the incentive payments and, if they consistently fail to meet them, they will lose the contract.  </p> <p>There is one operator for the tram system, which happens to be the largest tram system in the southern hemisphere.  The commuter rail system has another contract operator.  And there are numerous bus line operators.  For example, I rode a bus to and from work that was operated by an Australian company.  But I frequently took other buses that were operated by an English company.  </p> <p>All the operators are for profit companies.  The Australian government, in the public interest, subsidizes them.  However, at the end of the day, they have to meet their performance standards or they lose money and ultimately the contract.</p> <p>Whether intercity rail is in the public interest is debatable.  In Melbourne approximately 50 per cent of the people use public transit to get to and from work.  In the U.S. less than 5% of the population uses public transit.  And less than one per cent of the public uses passenger rail for intercity travel.    </p> <p>Electricity is in the public interest.  For most people in the United States, its is generated and delivered by investor owned companies.  These companies provide electric service to approximately 85 per cent of the population and generate more than 90 per cent of the power.  They cover their costs and earn a return for their shareholders.  If a person cannot afford to pay for electric energy, he or she can receive help from the government.  If this arrangement works for electric utilities, why would it not be a good model for public transport including intercity rail?  Tradition and inside the box thinking are the major impediments!</p> <p> </p>
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