How Did I Miss This One?

RJ wrote:
> John Charles Wilson > wrote:
>
>
>> If *everyone* used transit, it would be profitable and not require
>>a tax subsidy.
>
>
> and the economy would tank.

Tank whom for what?

--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

Jack May wrote:
> "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.
>
>
Ooooooooooooooooooooooh!

--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:

>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.

Passenger rail fills up during peak times long before it achieves
profitability. Long before -- it fills up before it can come close to
manage breaking even on operations alone.

Matthew T. Russotto > wrote:

> Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Passenger rail fills up during peak times long before it achieves
> profitability. Long before -- it fills up before it can come close to
> manage breaking even on operations alone.

Then it is probably overstaffed!

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

In article >,
Hans-Joachim Zierke > wrote:
>
>Matthew T. Russotto schrieb:
>
>
>> Passenger rail fills up during peak times long before it achieves
>> profitability. Long before -- it fills up before it can come close to
>> manage breaking even on operations alone.
>
>
>Interesting statement.
>
>Can you explain, how all the passenger rail operations in Europe survive,
>which don't receive any subsidy for their operation?

Easy, they do receive subsidies, or are outright owned by governments.