Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Subsidizing a mode of transport disguises the true cost to the users.  Moreover, it subsidizes all the people who use it even though many people could afford to tote the note.   For people below a given income level, i.e. XX per cent above the official poverty level, I would issue them vouchers (a credit card) similar to the ones issued for food stamps.  In this manner the truly needy would get help. Under the current arrangement a rider on the Long Island Railroad, who makes $500,000 a year, gets a subsidized ride.  Whether his incremental tax payments offset the subsidy is unknown, because we don't know what he pays in taxes. Austin, TX tried free public transport.  It attracted seemingly every bum, drunk, and drug addict in the city. The program drove away every lower and middle class user who could find an alternative mode of transport. Apparently the promoters of the idea never figured out that most people don't want to sit on a bus or any other place beside a filthy street person who reeks of alcohol. The experiment was dropped. The problem with cross subsidies is no user knows the true cost of the services that he believes that he is paying for.  So he tends to over or under use them.   I don't believe for a minute that we will dump the subsidies.  They are too deeply embedded in our system.  As soon as one tries to lift a rational discussion about them, emotionalism takes hold and nothing changes. Nevertheless, I believe looking at alternatives is a worthy exercise. Amtrak, which has chewed up more than $27 billion since its inception, was an emotional response.  Lets save the dying American passenger train, although most people had walked away from them between 1945 and 1970.
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