Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [CF] Fwd: Capital Metro weekend trains drew crowds but no profit

Expand Messages
  • George Keagle
    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
    Message 1 of 2 , May 8, 2010
      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:

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north841.html


      Geo. Keagle


      ________________________________
      From: John Mayson <john@...>
      To: CarFree@yahoogroups.com
      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

      --
      John Mayson <john@mayson. us>
      Austin, Texas, USA






      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jym Dyer
      ... =v= Exactly. There is a bizarre mental block going on that cars and roads are somehow just magically there and everything else is subsidized. One could
      Message 2 of 2 , May 8, 2010
        > Interstate 35 in Texas made $0.00 today as it has everyday
        > 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.

        =v= Exactly. There is a bizarre mental block going on that cars
        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.)
        <_Jym_>
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.