The government procurement process is not comparable to either a department operation or private industry. Both private industry and government agencies are under the gun for containing expenses and to work with a budget; but that has never stopped individuals and small groups from embezzling or defrauding either an agency or company.
A private contractor usually is sought because of the transient nature or lack of core competency for the goods or service being sought. At it's best, and ideally, a qualified and responsible contractor making the low bid wins; and at worst, corruption interferes.
The problem for high speed rail is that the hundreds of millions in contracts make tempting targets for the unscrupulous that can derail subsequent phases of a project.
schlimm As usual, you seem intent on ignoring the 800# gorilla. The military was forced to start contracting out a lot of work they used to do. Often there are very few potential contractors so you don't have (if one ever does) a free market. So they are stuck.
As usual, you seem intent on ignoring the 800# gorilla. The military was forced to start contracting out a lot of work they used to do. Often there are very few potential contractors so you don't have (if one ever does) a free market. So they are stuck.
Who is forcing the military to go to more expense by using private contractors? You mentioned that Reagan began the process. Reagan was for privatization, but that was an anomaly, and it was a long time ago. I don’t see much push for privatization today. If anything, it is just the opposite. Today the government runs GM. You are going to need to identify your 800-pound gorilla.
Bucyrus But how can that possibly be verified by any outside observer? It is a self-serving claim that nobody can verify. If you want a fair and logical comparison, have a neutral third party judge the performance of public and private sectors producing the same goods or service.
But how can that possibly be verified by any outside observer? It is a self-serving claim that nobody can verify.
Fair enough. So let's go to Iraq and have someone compare the cost of having the army transport a convoy of supplies by truck vs the cost of having Haliburton do it.
I have city water. It comes from a river and is processed through a water treatment facility before being piped to my home. My sister lives 4 miles from me. Her development has water supplied by a private company. It is untreated water from a central well. Her water bill is three times what mine is and everyone in the development gets bottled water to drink because the tap water tastes funny, though it has been tested and is safe.
I had another paragraph here, but elected to delete it because I am trying not to be political.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmBut there are many legitimate services that need to be done, such as in the military, that private companies won't touch unless they can tack on a big profit. Hence the military ends up spending much more for something they used to do themselves.
Well then why do they farm it out to private contractors if it costs more?
I understand your point that the specifics can vary and be an exception to the general rule. And it is true that private sector activity must include the cost of profit. But profit is a necessary component of the equation. Public sector has an advantage of being inherently non-profit, but they are burdened with other deficiencies such as a relative lack of accountability for costs compared to the private sector.
But if we are trying to compare the private and public sectors for their cost effectiveness in producing goods and services, the example of the military hiring private contactors versus doing the work itself is a highly flawed comparison. It does not compare the public and private sectors. Instead, it compares the public sector versus the public sector contracting through the private sector. So it is really only comparing two variations of the public sector.
Not only is that comparison illogical for reaching the conclusion, but also it is also simply unfair because it is being judged by one of the two participants being compared. The military has a powerful self-interest in saying that it could do the same work as the private sector at one quarter the cost. But how can that possibly be verified by any outside observer? It is a self-serving claim that nobody can verify.
If you want a fair and logical comparison, have a neutral third party judge the performance of public and private sectors producing the same goods or service.
CMStPnPAlso BTW, Sam1 never mentioned this but Southwest Airlines was adamantly opposed to HSR in Texas and lobbied to kill one of the past proposals. I would like to see HSR in Texas as a viable option on short hauls. I'm willing to pay for it via higher taxes if needed. It's coming eventually whether the obstructors and naysayers believe it or not. It's just a matter of time. Anyhow, my two cents.
Also BTW, Sam1 never mentioned this but Southwest Airlines was adamantly opposed to HSR in Texas and lobbied to kill one of the past proposals. I would like to see HSR in Texas as a viable option on short hauls. I'm willing to pay for it via higher taxes if needed. It's coming eventually whether the obstructors and naysayers believe it or not. It's just a matter of time. Anyhow, my two cents.
You are shortchanging yourself! I'd say that post was worth a lot more than 2 cents!! Not too surprising that sam1 omitted that little detail about SWA. Although Texas is a huge state in area, it looks like there are a number of metro areas within the magic 500 miles of each other and would thus be a great candidate for several HSR routes?
BucyrusIn the final analysis, it is the military that decides whether going to a private contractor is worth it for whatever reason. If the military is spending four times more than they should be for no good reason, are they not an example of inefficiency and incompetence? How can the answer be anything but yes?
Bucyrus: Let me try again. The answer lies in the policy of "privatization" a scheme started under Reagan under the pretext that since "'government is the problem", let's turn over as many government functions to private enterprise as possible. Sometimes it works out quite well. But there are many legitimate services that need to be done, such as in the military, that private companies won't touch unless they can tack on a big profit. Hence the military ends up spending much more for something they used to do themselves. Many people believe the real reasons for privatization are: 1. flexibility in staffing in return for paying much more for the privilege; and 2. more gravy for political supporters. All in all, there are some pluses and minuses, as in most situations in the real world, not all or nothing.
Paul MilenkovicFor one thing, we already are (cutting highway and airport development). If we are not cutting those things, we may be faced with cutting them on account of the same budget situation that makes funding for trains hard. A good measure why people are even thinking of HSR is California is that adding lanes to I-5 is considered to be a non-starter based on the shape of State and Federal budgets. But a good question to ask is whether HSR is a good subsitute for expanding I-5. The Amtrak/intercity portion of the NEC replaces, probably, one freeway lane in each direction, and that is the "densest" Amtrak route. Pacific Surfliner and Hiawatha are nowhere near that level of traffic. My back-of-the-envelope calculation for the projected ridership of 50 million passengers on the CA HSR suggests that it would substitute for multiple freeway lanes in each direction, and on that basis alone, the HSR is a good value. Some intuition tells me that those ridership projections are way over-projected. Someone mentioned that the NEC does 3 million passengers/year on Acela -- when you add in Regionals, does this bring things up to about 10 million? Mind you, Boston, New York City, Philly, and more recently DC have rail transit "feeder" networks into the NEC. OK, SF perhaps has rail transit on the level of DC, LA is getting there. But even so, I don't so how you have the supporting infrastructure in CA for the 50 million passengers. But there is the temptation to say, not only are we going to thave rains and train ridership by not building more expensive highways, but if we didn't have the highway system we have (Interstates), we could have more trains. Kind of like, OK, if we "train people" can't get funding for our train, we will oppose funding for that highway that "you highway people" want. I figure that kind of thinking is popular in some circles, but is that the way to "win friends and influence people" to get more trains. I don't say this just for idle discussion. The idea of not only advocating trains but opposing highways has worked its way into public pronouncements of our local passenger train advocacy group.
For one thing, we already are (cutting highway and airport development). If we are not cutting those things, we may be faced with cutting them on account of the same budget situation that makes funding for trains hard.
A good measure why people are even thinking of HSR is California is that adding lanes to I-5 is considered to be a non-starter based on the shape of State and Federal budgets.
But a good question to ask is whether HSR is a good subsitute for expanding I-5.
The Amtrak/intercity portion of the NEC replaces, probably, one freeway lane in each direction, and that is the "densest" Amtrak route. Pacific Surfliner and Hiawatha are nowhere near that level of traffic.
My back-of-the-envelope calculation for the projected ridership of 50 million passengers on the CA HSR suggests that it would substitute for multiple freeway lanes in each direction, and on that basis alone, the HSR is a good value. Some intuition tells me that those ridership projections are way over-projected.
Someone mentioned that the NEC does 3 million passengers/year on Acela -- when you add in Regionals, does this bring things up to about 10 million? Mind you, Boston, New York City, Philly, and more recently DC have rail transit "feeder" networks into the NEC. OK, SF perhaps has rail transit on the level of DC, LA is getting there. But even so, I don't so how you have the supporting infrastructure in CA for the 50 million passengers.
But there is the temptation to say, not only are we going to thave rains and train ridership by not building more expensive highways, but if we didn't have the highway system we have (Interstates), we could have more trains. Kind of like, OK, if we "train people" can't get funding for our train, we will oppose funding for that highway that "you highway people" want. I figure that kind of thinking is popular in some circles, but is that the way to "win friends and influence people" to get more trains.
I don't say this just for idle discussion. The idea of not only advocating trains but opposing highways has worked its way into public pronouncements of our local passenger train advocacy group.
Your not looking at the whole picture and your analysis is narrowed to just a freeway comparison. I am pretty sure that HSR also competes to an extent with short haul flights on the airlines. Living in Texas in boom times a lot of flights used to exist between DFW and just San Antonio. It was like DFW was a unsinkable aircraft carrier just for Texas flights. Delta and American each had about 8-10 flights a day. Post 9-11 that traffic has subsided greatly (Delta exited and flights were otherwise reduced in frequency). Personally, I would rather see HSR between those cities then have to breath the smog or have to deal with the ridiculous congestion from a weather event delay, which impacts other parts of the Air Traffic Control system of the United States. Thats why I stated in earlier posts that nobody has done a really subjective analysis here on how HSR contributes to Productivity and GDP. I would like to see that done because these comparisons to other modes of transport are typically flawed in one way or another, IMO. I am fairly confident that HSR is a net plus to GDP vs a net loss, even with borrowing money to pay for part of it.
I flew 450k air miles in the late 1990's across 4-5 years up until 9-11. DFW and Love field both have a ridiculous amount of flights internally to internal Texas Cities. They are in fact taking the place of HSR now and we are paying for it in Texas via smog, time it takes to fly out of Dallas or Ft. Worth as well as dimished capacity at our airports for outstate flights. Also BTW, Sam1 never mentioned this but Southwest Airlines was adamantly opposed to HSR in Texas and lobbied to kill one of the past proposals. I would like to see HSR in Texas as a viable option on short hauls. I'm willing to pay for it via higher taxes if needed. It's comming eventually wether the obstructors and naysayers believe it or not. It's just a matter of time.
Anyhow, my two cents.
henry6The Military shouldn't go after a private contractor to save money but to get the job done fast and or right. If the military has no expertise in say, changing out a defective valve, then call an outside plumber. However, our system has fostered the practice of the plumber knowing it is dealing with big pockets government so that the $10.00 valve from the hardware store is now $20 or $50 and the hourly rate is not $50 but at least $100 and the time is not one hour but a full eight hours and a wrench has to be bought for the job (even though it is already in the plumber toolbox) for another $75. Responsiblity and patriotism do not go hand in hand with making money evidently.
The other is the practice of farming out work to contractors. The problem here isn't high cost, but lousy service. When the contract doesn't pay incrementally for carefully measured performance, you will get a contractor who just barely meets the letter of the contract (or even falls below and dares you not to pay) because the only way they can increase their profit is to cut costs.
This is a big part of the reason Chatsworth happened. The contract operator had no incentive whatsoever to perform at a high level. His maximum profit came at doing the absolute bare minimum. Taking employees out of service costs money and doesn't increase revenue a dime.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
The Military shouldn't go after a private contractor to save money but to get the job done fast and or right. If the military has no expertise in say, changing out a defective valve, then call an outside plumber. However, our system has fostered the practice of the plumber knowing it is dealing with big pockets government so that the $10.00 valve from the hardware store is now $20 or $50 and the hourly rate is not $50 but at least $100 and the time is not one hour but a full eight hours and a wrench has to be bought for the job (even though it is already in the plumber toolbox) for another $75. Responsiblity and patriotism do not go hand in hand with making money evidently.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
schlimm BucyrusThe fact that they hire sub-contractors and pay them far more than the military cost for doing the same work might just as well be regarded as evidence of the relative inefficiency of government compared to the private business. Paying a private subcontractor far more than the military (government) for the same work is actually a great example of the inefficiency of the private business compared to the government! Lower costs for the same work output is how business and everyone else define increased productivity, except with you in "bizarro world" where everything is backwards (special thanks to Seinfeld). "Privatization" of former government run services got going with Reagan and was supposed to save money, but mostly it has been used to put it straight into the hands of companies with connections, like Haliburton, Blackwater, etc.
BucyrusThe fact that they hire sub-contractors and pay them far more than the military cost for doing the same work might just as well be regarded as evidence of the relative inefficiency of government compared to the private business.
Paying a private subcontractor far more than the military (government) for the same work is actually a great example of the inefficiency of the private business compared to the government! Lower costs for the same work output is how business and everyone else define increased productivity, except with you in "bizarro world" where everything is backwards (special thanks to Seinfeld).
"Privatization" of former government run services got going with Reagan and was supposed to save money, but mostly it has been used to put it straight into the hands of companies with connections, like Haliburton, Blackwater, etc.
Mr. Berthold,
My point may seem upside down, but I think you should take a closer look at it.
Consider this example: The military pays a higher cost to a private contractor than what it would cost the military to do the same work itself.
On one level, it may seem logical to conclude that this proves that the public sector is more cost effective than the private sector.
But that conclusion from the example is faulty because, with that conclusion, the action of the example simply makes no economic sense. Why would you pay someone else more to do something than it would cost you to do it yourself? You could say that maybe the private contractor could get the job done faster. But then if it is worth spending more to get the job done faster, how is it a bad bargain? Faster delivery costs more.
In the final analysis, it is the military that decides whether going to a private contractor is worth it for whatever reason. If the military is spending four times more than they should be for no good reason, are they not an example of inefficiency and incompetence? How can the answer be anything but yes?
Phoebe Vet I disagree. When the military does it itself it is much cheaper than it is when they sub it out to a for profit company. If you get the Republican stated plan to eliminate Medicare and replace it with a voucher system you can use to buy insurance, just watch the cost go through the roof. We have Medicare because the insurance companies don't want to insure old people. There is no profit in it. Old people go to the doctor and the hospital too often and take too many drugs. Check around your area. Compare municipal water systems to private water systems. Compare municipal garbage collection to private garbage collection.
I disagree. When the military does it itself it is much cheaper than it is when they sub it out to a for profit company.
If you get the Republican stated plan to eliminate Medicare and replace it with a voucher system you can use to buy insurance, just watch the cost go through the roof. We have Medicare because the insurance companies don't want to insure old people. There is no profit in it. Old people go to the doctor and the hospital too often and take too many drugs.
Check around your area. Compare municipal water systems to private water systems. Compare municipal garbage collection to private garbage collection.
I cannot think of any way to personally compare the cost of a service provided by the private sector to one provided by the public sector. I have private trash service and public water/sewer. There are no public trash pickup or private water/sewer services available. Noteworthy, however, is the fact that the public water/sewer abruptly raised the rate 100% in 2008 with no commensurate improvement in service. The city hired a consultant and paid him for over a year to study the rates and come up with the idea for a 100% rate increase. If a private sector provider did that, they would be put out of business by a consumer backlash, but we consumers have to choice to get our water/sewer elsewhere.
I don’t doubt you when you say that private contractors charge more to the military than the cost of the military doing the work themselves. But I would not necessarily conclude that that proves that the government is more efficient at delivering goods and services than the private sector. If the government were more efficient at providing goods and services, they would demonstrate it by doing so. The fact that they hire sub-contractors and pay them far more than the military cost for doing the same work might just as well be regarded as evidence of the relative inefficiency of government compared to the private business.
Moreover, if the government were the most efficient provider, why not just empower them to do everything? What’s stopping us?
Phoebe Vet Bucyrus I can’t disagree with that as far as it goes. But I do believe that, for a host of fundamental reasons, government is the least efficient producer of goods and services 99% of the time. That would explain why every time the military subcontracts one of it's functions, like feeding the troops, guarding VIPs, or transporting material, out to a civilian contractor the cost quadruples.
Bucyrus I can’t disagree with that as far as it goes. But I do believe that, for a host of fundamental reasons, government is the least efficient producer of goods and services 99% of the time.
No, I think that what would explain why the cost quadruples every time the military subcontracts one of it's functions out to a civilian contractor, is the fact that the government is the prime contractor.
That would explain why every time the military subcontracts one of it's functions, like feeding the troops, guarding VIPs, or transporting material, out to a civilian contractor the cost quadruples.
oltmanndBucyrusReducing debt advances our economy because debt places a drag on the economy that increases as the debt increases. While there might be economic benefit from the product of an infrastructure investment per se, that benefit might easily be more than offset by an economic detriment from adding its cost to an already high debt load. It would be Utopia if all we had to do to achieve prosperity were borrow money and spend it on things we need to make life more convenient. Government spending in and of itself is neither good nor evil. It depends totally on who is the most efficient goods or service provider.
BucyrusReducing debt advances our economy because debt places a drag on the economy that increases as the debt increases. While there might be economic benefit from the product of an infrastructure investment per se, that benefit might easily be more than offset by an economic detriment from adding its cost to an already high debt load. It would be Utopia if all we had to do to achieve prosperity were borrow money and spend it on things we need to make life more convenient.
I can’t disagree with that as far as it goes. But I do believe that, for a host of fundamental reasons, government is the least efficient producer of goods and services 99% of the time. Government spending and investment is always sapped by the inherent corruption of the individual players using the money to fulfill political motivations and expand their empires. That motivation is the true greed if you want to use a fashionable term.
About the only function that I can think of where government might be the most efficient provider is dealing with national emergencies, national defense, and things of that nature where an overarching organizational effect is beneficial.
NJ's congestion of roads and railroads is not the same as other parts of the country...yet. It has been stated by urban and transportation planners that there is no more ground to be taken by highways nor can the air take on any further pollution. The whole of transportation has to be rethought, reworked, rerationalized in NJ. You cannot add highway lanes but you can't just say add trains or tracks and catenary either. But since NJ is not alone in this problem, virtually every spot on the Corridor from Portland, ME to Norfolk, VA and west to at least Schenectady, NY, Harrisburg, PA, and eastern sections of West Virginia and western parts of Maryland, are in the same fix or soon will be. It is time to seriously think through options and plan carefully with political opinions and lobby monies put aside. California has done this, Washington State and the Pacific Northwest in general, too. Chicago between Detroit, Cleveland, Louisville, St. Louis, Minniapolis/St. Paul and Milwaukee is very close to having to carefully think this through, too..
Paul MilenkovicFor one thing, we already are (cutting highway and airport development). If we are not cutting those things, we may be faced with cutting them on account of the same budget situation that makes funding for trains hard. A good measure why people are even thinking of HSR is California is that adding lanes to I-5 is considered to be a non-starter based on the shape of State and Federal budgets. But a good question to ask is whether HSR is a good subsitute for expanding I-5 The Amtrak/intercity portion of the NEC replaces, probably, one freeway lane in each direction, and that is the "densest" Amtrak route. Pacific Surfliner and Hiawatha are nowhere near that level of traffic. My back-of-the-envelope calculation for the projected ridership of 50 million passengers on the CA HSR suggests that it would substitute for multiple freeway lanes in each direction, and on that basis alone, the HSR is a good value. Some intuition tells me that those ridership projections are way over-projected. Someone mentioned that the NEC does 3 million passengers/year on Acela -- when you add in Regionals, does this bring things up to about 10 million? Mind you, Boston, New York City, Philly, and more recently DC have rail transit "feeder" networks into the NEC. OK, SF perhaps has rail transit on the level of DC, LA is getting there. But even so, I don't so how you have the supporting infrastructure in CA for the 50 million passengers. But there is the temptation to say, not only are we going to thave rains and train ridership by not building more expensive highways, but if we didn't have the highway system we have (Interstates), we could have more trains. Kind of like, OK, if we "train people" can't get funding for our train, we will oppose funding for that highway that "you highway people" want. I figure that kind of thinking is popular in some circles, but is that the way to "win friends and influence people" to get more trains. I don't say this just for idle discussion. The idea of not only advocating trains but opposing highways has worked its way into public pronouncements of our local passenger train advocacy group.
But a good question to ask is whether HSR is a good subsitute for expanding I-5
Even the NEC comes up short in comparison to a lane on I-95. Between 5 pm and 5:59 pm there are only the Acela, Regional, and Keystone; and those may come up short. Once past Newark (NJ), the NEC has lots of underutilized capacity; but getting out of Manhattan is the issue where NJT moves a lot more people. If NJT needs capacity enough to justify a second set of tunnels, maybe there would be some residual capacity that would allow Amtrak to increase Acela and Regional frequencies and new routes to Norfolk, VA and Dover, DE. Then maybe hourly ridership may exceed lane capacity, nominally 2,200 auto drivers and passengers an hour. Offhand, I'd say there is a better argument for more rail tunnels into Manhattan instead of more highway tunnels.
Even if Amtrak Hiawathas could run evey half-hour in the peaks, that might amount to half a lane on I-94. The key is that Hiawathas could operate in conjunction with Metra whose Milwaukee North ridership represents roughly two lanes getting in and out of downtown Chicago. 110 mph Talgos aren't possible in the peak because of the lack of a sufficient service window with Metra, and the hundreds of millions for a third track just isn't going to happen for only three trains in each workday peak. Building a new high speed line just won't happen between Chicago and Milwaukee for the same reason as for New York - Washington, DC.
As it is Amtrak fares could exploit the cost of driving to downtown Chicago more than at present; but fares already exceed the driving costs getting to outlying parts of the City and suburbs which is the larger, if dispersed, part of the urban area market. Options for more direct routes to the suburbs may be over the CN, either continuing from Rondout to O'Hare on the former EJ&E, around the suburbs to Joliet, or by way of Waukesha. Using existing railways, even with improvements, would be less costly when taken together than additional lanes on I-94.
CMStPnP I agree, lets reduce our debt by cutting the larger Interstate Highway and Airport budgets.
I agree, lets reduce our debt by cutting the larger Interstate Highway and Airport budgets.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Phoebe Vet What a surprise; a Republican is trying to disrupt yet another piece of legislation or it's implementation. I know that is a political statement, but it is what it is. I will not pursue it any further.
What a surprise; a Republican is trying to disrupt yet another piece of legislation or it's implementation.
I know that is a political statement, but it is what it is.
I will not pursue it any further.
In reading the article, I don't see where anybody is trying to disrupt a piece of legislation. On the contrary, it sounds like representative John Mica of Florida is criticizing the FRA for their inability to manage HSR spending, rather than criticizing HSR itself. The following quote from the article seems to summarize Rep. Mica’s position:
"I'm very concerned that FRA's work missed the mark, and maybe hijacked the ability of the country to see some true high-speed rail-operations," Mica said in a telephone interview.
BNSFwatcher Airlines are "for the middle-class, and above"? Just go to LGA, EWR, or JFK, of a Friday afternoon and check the lines for "Vomit Comets" to San Juan, PR. Enlightening, methinks! Hays
Airlines are "for the middle-class, and above"? Just go to LGA, EWR, or JFK, of a Friday afternoon and check the lines for "Vomit Comets" to San Juan, PR. Enlightening, methinks!
Hays
Most of the Puerto Ricans on those flights I would wager are Middle Class.
schlimm BucyrusI would submit that at the rate this county is presently going into debt while the economy is performing so poorly, hardly any public sector project satisfies a cost/benefit analysis, and certainly not HSR. Your answer seems a bit convoluted for me, but your bottom line seems to be paying off the debt is the only sensible thing to do. Given that much of that debt is held by China, I fail to see how that advances our economic productivity. A transfer payment simply does not have the same positive economic benefit as an infrastructure investment. I do agree with you that the costs and benefits of various rail improvements (passenger and electrification) need to be examined in as accurate a way as is possible.
BucyrusI would submit that at the rate this county is presently going into debt while the economy is performing so poorly, hardly any public sector project satisfies a cost/benefit analysis, and certainly not HSR.
Your answer seems a bit convoluted for me, but your bottom line seems to be paying off the debt is the only sensible thing to do. Given that much of that debt is held by China, I fail to see how that advances our economic productivity. A transfer payment simply does not have the same positive economic benefit as an infrastructure investment. I do agree with you that the costs and benefits of various rail improvements (passenger and electrification) need to be examined in as accurate a way as is possible.
Reducing debt advances our economy because debt places a drag on the economy that increases as the debt increases. While there might be economic benefit from the product of an infrastructure investment per se, that benefit might easily be more than offset by an economic detriment from adding its cost to an already high debt load. It would be Utopia if all we had to do to achieve prosperity were borrow money and spend it on things we need to make life more convenient.
henry6 OK then let's make them both potable water pipelines. Mine doesn't benefit you and your's doesn't benefit me. By your statements there is no reason for me to pay for yours nor for you to pay for mine.
OK then let's make them both potable water pipelines. Mine doesn't benefit you and your's doesn't benefit me. By your statements there is no reason for me to pay for yours nor for you to pay for mine.
Well in a perfect world, your example would be the fairest approach to paying for the water service. But since we all use water, I assume that these things balance out. Therefore, I have no desire to assure that the money I pay for taxes and water bills only goes to the lines and system that are directly responsible for providing my water.
It is unrealistic to try to compare absolutes, so we are left with comparing degrees. Not everybody uses every highway. Some people do not use any highway for personal transportation, and yet they benefit indirectly from goods that are transported by highway. So, generally, I would conclude that use of and payment for highways is quite evenly dispersed among all users and payers.
On the contrary, in general, I would conclude that while the payment for HSR will be evenly dispersed among the payers, the use of HSR will be enjoyed only by a very small percentage of the payers.
So there is a point where the use of, and payment for public works can become unfair. And I think that HSR is far beyond that tipping point.
henry6 Ok. So I come along with a hairbrained idea that I want a HSR from Portland, Maine to Port St. Lucie, Florida. So it only benefits the eastcoasters but I need financial help from the government to get it done. Those between Portland, OR and Port St. Joe on the west coast get no benefit. But you want a water supply system from high up in the Rockies to supply west coastal cities with potable water. So it benefits only the westcoasters but you need help from the government to get it done. Those between Portland, ME and Port St. Lucie, FL on the east coast get no benefit. So do we all go without what we want and need?
Ok. So I come along with a hairbrained idea that I want a HSR from Portland, Maine to Port St. Lucie, Florida. So it only benefits the eastcoasters but I need financial help from the government to get it done. Those between Portland, OR and Port St. Joe on the west coast get no benefit.
But you want a water supply system from high up in the Rockies to supply west coastal cities with potable water. So it benefits only the westcoasters but you need help from the government to get it done. Those between Portland, ME and Port St. Lucie, FL on the east coast get no benefit.
So do we all go without what we want and need?
Again, that is not the point. It is a straw dog. The relevant point is the determination of whether either of those two projects is necessary, worthwhile, and cost effective.
The point is not whether everyone who benefits from those two projects pays for them and those who do not benefit do not pay for them.
Obviously, with any socialized improvement or service, the cost to individuals is not going to be divided up precisely according to their exact usage of the service.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.