"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On 29 Jan 2006 12:03:28 -0800, "John Charles Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>>> You are implying that transit is free that nobody pays for which of
>>> course
>>> is absurd. Transit is tens of times more expensive in both taxes and
>>> the
>>> cost of time. In your area, most of the taxes for transportation paid
>>> mainly by drivers is spent on transit, not car infrastructure. If we
>>> went
>>> to everyone using transit, sales taxes would have to go above 100%
>>
>> If *everyone* used transit, it would be profitable and not require
>>a tax subsidy.
>
> And the involvement need not reach 100% (or even close) to achieve
> profitability. As late as the 1940s, passenger rail transit in this
> country was profitable without any government subsidies at all. In
> fact, some of these railroads (streetcars) actually had rather
> one-sided franchise agreements that required them to maintain the very
> same roads that were use by automobile traffic - in effect, the
> railroads subsidized the automobile AND paid taxes on the property
> they owned. Yet somehow they managed to make a profit, at least for a
> while.
>
> There is no reason to believe that passenger rail could not be
> profitable once again given sufficient ridership. At the rate our
> freeways are clogging up, that may happen sooner rather than later.

There are lots of reason and those reasons are what lead to the failure of
rail.

Please learn about the normal evolution of technology before make such
illiterate statements.