Re: [CF] Fwd: Capital Metro weekend trains drew crowds but no profit
- Any endeavor, whether government ("public") or private, either spends more than it takes in ("goes in the hole"), or it covers all expenses and has earnings ("profits"). Apparently, had Capital Metro been able to collect full fare from all riders they would have had earnings rather than losses based upon ridership; but seniors, disabled and children pay lower fares and accounted for a substantial percentage of riders, thus Metro suffered a loss from operations on that particular day or period.
My old friend Gary North had an interesting essay this morning that addresses federal shortfalls but applies equally to the smallest local government enterprise:
From: John Mayson <john@...>
Sent: Sat, May 8, 2010 9:20:11 PM
Subject: [CF] Fwd: Capital Metro weekend trains drew crowds but no profit
http://www.statesma n.com/news/ local/capital- metro-weekend- trains-drew- crowds-but- no-666167. html
Can someone explain this to me? Transit is a public service, it's not supposed to make a profit. Our road system certainly doesn't make a profit. Neither do our schools or fire departments. Why is transit expected to be profitable?
John Mayson <john@mayson. us>
Austin, Texas, USA
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Interstate 35 in Texas made $0.00 today as it has everyday=v= Exactly. There is a bizarre mental block going on that cars
> since it was first built. But enormous expense went into
> building it. And today we continue to pay to maintain it and
> respond to the crashes and other emergencies along it. Using
> the same logic the Interstate should've been shutdown decades
> ago for failure to earn a profit.
and roads are somehow just magically there and everything else
is subsidized. One could drive a "Liberty" brand SUV fueled
with "Rebel" gasoline on a "Free"way, each element so thoroughly
marketed (right down to the names) as the way things should be.
Meanwhile, the more efficient and less-costly alternatives are
subjected to far more scrutiny for far less subsidy.
=v= I have yet to see a Ron Paul supporter or libertoonian type
tackle this issue, which would seem to be very important for
someone who professes those principles. At best they'll mumble
about some private toll road somewhere, while not bothering to
address their patronage of a bailed-out auto company guzzling
subsidized gas on state-maintained roads. (Indeed, they're far
more likely to rationalize this in terms of entitlement based
on the taxes they pay against their wills.)