[PRCo] Re: Business

[Schneider Fred]

Did it not occur to you that the cost of delivering the average  
transit ride has risen to perhaps $6 to $8 per passenger (not  
inconsistent with the inflation of a nickel fare over 120 years) but  
politicians a reluctant to pass the true costs along to the riders  
because many of them simply do not have the money to pay that,  
therefore it becomes a much easier process to divide the fare over  
300 million Americans in their federal, state and local taxes.   If  
urban politicans passed on the true costs, they would be less likely  
to be reelected.   Don't expect it to happen.
It is similar to dividing the cost of the fire department among all  
the people in the nation.   Or would you rather we charge you the  
cost of wetting down your house after it has burnt to the ground?

There are some tasks, Philip, that probably rightfully belong in the  
provence of government whether or not we always appreciate them:   
issuing of currency, raising of armies, police, perhaps delivery of  
mail (and in many countries the post office includes the internet and  
the phone company and some would argue they could all be non  
government because they can make money), perhaps the support of the  
arts (I never cease to be amazed at how excellent BBC's broadcasting  
is even though it is tax supported).   Some would argue that garbage  
collection needs to be public and in our cities it probably should be  
because there are people who don't have the money to pay for it if we  
don't tax them. I do not see anyone arguing that public highways  
should be tax supported so why should public transportation not also  
be tax supported?   Government is a business that always needs to  
become larger in order to achieve its goals ... always needs to find  
something new to do.   Therefore there are other tasks it will try to  
expand into to keep getting bigger.  Look for it to "reluctantly"  
move into medicine next because it can control over six million  
physicians and hospital employees whom it only partly controls now  
through Medicare.

The only argument against public support of transportation is that "I  
don't use it."   That is the same argument, Philip, that people  
without children use when they complain about taxes for public  
schools.  Is it a valid argument?   Is it any more valid to tell the  
insurance company I shouldn't pay for my policy because my house  
didn't burn?

Transit is a big businss ... thousands of jobs and millions of  
dollars in reward money for a politician.   Don't expect it to change  
drastically.

On Dec 11, 2008, at 3:04 PM, Phillip Clark Campbell wrote:

> Many say that proper communications would make for a better society.
> It is probably far more insidious; our problems stem from a love of  
> money.
> Case in point:  current transit agencies need more and more money but
> is the end product any better than it was in the 1930s, 40s, 50s?
> I have often stated that funding for transit should be cut to bare  
> bones;
> those with $$ for eyes would leave the agencies and those with an  
> interest in
> transit 'might' remain.  Once all the hollering from the agencies  
> completely
> dies, then it might be time to reconsider funding.
>
> It would be very painful for 'all' for a while;  the end result  
> might produce
> much better service - even infinitely better.