[PEN-L:8367] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: California Green Party Assembly Representive

[Eugene Coyle <eugenecoyle@xxxxxxx>]

Why should public transit "run at a profit"?  The fire department doesn't.

Gene Coyle

Michael Hoover wrote:

> > Because public transport is underfunded, most people associate public
> > transport with inefficiency, poverty and bad government.  But the disgust
> > with
> > traffic grows daily and people do not want freeways too near their cul de
> > sacs.
> > Michael Perelman
>
> part of public transit 'renaissance' in 1970s was result of growing
> disenchantment with urban freeway system...renewal was largely
> financed by federal govt't which appropriated about $89 billion
> between 1970-1994 for mass transit development...feds spent almost
> same amount between 1990-1994 on interstate highway system and
> estimates indicate similar amount is needed to repair about 5,000
> of existing 42,500 miles of system...
>
> cost overuns on new systems, failure to meet ridership projections,
> and inability to operate at a profit left federal mass transit
> funding vulnerable to budget attacks and ideological polemics...
> for example, low ridership (about 20% of projections) on Miami's
> Metrorail served as rationale for cutting federal subsidies and
> free markeeter rhetoric intended to turn people off to mass transit,
> but without continuing fed aid, feeder lines needed to raise
> ridership can't be built...
>
> today, state (47%) and federal (9%) subsidied make up majority of
> public transit revenues with fares and ads contributing the rest...
> but operations lost money even at peak of public transit ridership
> earlier in 20th century...so to get advantages - convenience,
> punctuality, speed, lower oil costs, reduced pollution - it may
> not be possible to demand that public transit systems run at a
> profit...   Michael Hoover