On 18 Dec 2007 21:54:10 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.written, "Keith F.
Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
>Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
>> Metro only covers 57% of its costs in fares.
>
>If true, that shows utter incompetence,

No, it just means that they are not "leaving money on the table"
with regard to the other income sources they have available.
Such as those you go on to mention:

>They also get income from advertisers (in the trains, in the stations,
>*on* the trains, on the *farecards*, and even on the tunnel walls
>between the stations),

I guess many people would rather see the ads than pay higher fares.

>charges for parking,

Is there some reason those who use the parking should be subsidized
by those who don't?

>and the $5 charge for every SmarTrip card *in addition* to the value
>on the card.

Probably the same order of magnitude as what it costs them to
provide the card. And probably just about enough to keep some
otherwise unconcerned people from tossing the depleted card.

>Not to mention massive subsidies from government at every level.

That, of course, is a bad thing.

"David Harmon" <source@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:13mip76ds1ls42c@corp.supernews.com...
>>Not to mention massive subsidies from government at every level.
>
> That, of course, is a bad thing.

Because private cars aren't subsidized? (Hint: who pays for roads,
traffic enforcement, and wars in the Middle East?)

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:05:05 -0800 in rec.arts.sf.written, "Mike
Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote,
>
>"David Harmon" <source@netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:13mip76ds1ls42c@corp.supernews.com...
>>>Not to mention massive subsidies from government at every level.
>>
>> That, of course, is a bad thing.
>
>Because private cars aren't subsidized? (Hint: who pays for roads,

Mainly paid for by gas/fuel tax.

>traffic enforcement,

Famously, a revenue source.

>and wars in the Middle East?)

Certainly not any benefit to car drivers.

..

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:12:39 -0800, David Harmon <source@netcom.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:05:05 -0800 in rec.arts.sf.written, "Mike
>Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote,
>>
>>"David Harmon" <source@netcom.com> wrote in message
>>news:13mip76ds1ls42c@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>Not to mention massive subsidies from government at every level.
>>>
>>> That, of course, is a bad thing.
>>
>>Because private cars aren't subsidized? (Hint: who pays for roads,
>
>Mainly paid for by gas/fuel tax.
>

Which makes it no less a subsidy.

On Dec 19, 3:12 pm, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:05:05 -0800 in rec.arts.sf.written, "Mike
> Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote,
>
>
>
> >"David Harmon" <sou...@netcom.com> wrote in message
> >news:13mip76ds1ls42c@corp.supernews.com...
> >>>Not to mention massive subsidies from government at every level.
>
> >> That, of course, is a bad thing.
>
> >Because private cars aren't subsidized? (Hint: who pays for roads,
>
> Mainly paid for by gas/fuel tax.

In fact most of the extra 43% Keith's metro needs almost certainly
ALSO comes from fuel taxes on automobile and truck fuels.

Car drivers subsidize mass transit. This isn't a secret, AFAIK the
federal hiway fund and most state hiway funds are entirely paid for by
taxes on gas and diesel fuel and those funds are regularly raided for
funds for mass transit systems.

Car drivers also subsidize heavy trucks, since the claim I've seen is
that heavy trucks damage the roads more than their fuel taxes are
worth.

> >traffic enforcement,
>
> Famously, a revenue source.

Depends on the type of enforcement under discussion.

Ordinary speeding tickets and the like (which are mostly what I think
of) are a nearly pure plus for the government, calling them a subsidy
would be like calling the pay for the guys who collect fuel taxes a
subsidy. A community needs to have some number of police spread out
and on call ANYWAY. When they have nothing better to do they spend
five minutes writing a circa $100 traffic tickets and actually show a
profit. Big expense there. Running the traffic court costs a fair
amount and reduces the profit for the government from absurd to mearly
substantial, but it is a profit center.

OTOH: DUI enforcement very probably costs the government on net
(trials are expensive, and so is even the minimal jail time given out
for most DUI). Additionally police accident reports almost certainly
cost the government more to produce than the income they generate for
the government. But I doubt it has any effect on the major direction
of government cash flow relating to driving.

DougL

"DougL" <lampert.doug@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f7774b69-dbae-46cf-be31-24e80ccddfb2@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Car drivers subsidize mass transit. This isn't a secret, AFAIK the
> federal hiway fund and most state hiway funds are entirely paid for
> by
> taxes on gas and diesel fuel and those funds are regularly raided
> for
> funds for mass transit systems.

And to the extent that mass transit takes cars off congested highways,
they get value for it.

David Harmon <bad@example.invalid> wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
>>> Metro only covers 57% of its costs in fares.

>> If true, that shows utter incompetence,

> No, it just means that they are not "leaving money on the table"
> with regard to the other income sources they have available.
> Such as those you go on to mention:

But they keep going on about how they desperately need more money.
And more and more. They even lie about their past rate increases.

>> They also get income from advertisers (in the trains, in the
>> stations, *on* the trains, on the *farecards*, and even on the
>> tunnel walls between the stations),

> I guess many people would rather see the ads than pay higher fares.

I don't care about the ads. But why do we have more ads than ever
before *plus* higher rate increases than ever before, together with
worse service than ever before? Where is all the money going?

>> charges for parking.

> Is there some reason those who use the parking should be subsidized
> by those who don't?

Of course not. But it *is* another source of income. A big one.

I didn't mention that a couple years ago they belatedly discovered
that their parking attendants had been ripping them off for millions
of dollars by simply pocketing the cash motorists were paying, and had
been getting away with this for decades. Instead of looking into how
retail stores prevent this sort of thing from happening, they decreed
that anyone who parks in a Metro lot would have to use a SmarTrip card
to pay. As I mentioned, those cards all cost $5 in addition to the
value on the card.

Considering that the capital costs of Metro's parking lots should all
be paid off by now, as should all other capital costs, Metro should be
making a mint from all this income. (Who else gets away with selling
more seats than they have? Airlines, maybe, but they generally refund
the ticket price if there's no seat for you -- and even provide
vouchers.) Instead, Metro repeatedly claims to be desperately short
of money, and keep raising their rates.

>> Not to mention massive subsidies from government at every level.

> That, of course, is a bad thing.

I agree.

The system ought to be making enough of a profit that they can
reinvest the profit to build new capacity to keep up with increasing
demand. Instead, they claim to lose more money with each additional
passenger. Gross, shameful, incompetence.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:41:26 GMT in rec.arts.sf.written, David
Johnston <david@block.net> wrote,
>On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:12:39 -0800, David Harmon <source@netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:05:05 -0800 in rec.arts.sf.written, "Mike
>>Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote,
>>>
>>>"David Harmon" <source@netcom.com> wrote in message
>>>news:13mip76ds1ls42c@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>Not to mention massive subsidies from government at every level.
>>>>
>>>> That, of course, is a bad thing.
>>>
>>>Because private cars aren't subsidized? (Hint: who pays for roads,
>>
>>Mainly paid for by gas/fuel tax.
>>
>
>Which makes it no less a subsidy.

It sure as hell does make it less a subsidy. It's not flawless, but
to a first approximation drivers pay for the roads in proportion to
the amount they use the roads, when they buy fuel.

..

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:24:52 GMT in rec.arts.sf.written, "Mike
Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote,
>
>"DougL" <lampert.doug@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:f7774b69-dbae-46cf-be31-24e80ccddfb2@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Car drivers subsidize mass transit. This isn't a secret, AFAIK the
>> federal hiway fund and most state hiway funds are entirely paid for
>> by
>> taxes on gas and diesel fuel and those funds are regularly raided
>> for
>> funds for mass transit systems.
>
>And to the extent that mass transit takes cars off congested highways,
>they get value for it.

By that reasoning, the mass transit system should subsidize auto
sales, since each car on the road takes a load off the system that
Keith says is too crowded to provide decent service, AND lower their
financial burden since they are losing money on each fare.

..

"David Harmon" <source@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:13mk2ir3gm599f5@corp.supernews.com...
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:24:52 GMT in rec.arts.sf.written, "Mike
> Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote,
>>
>>"DougL" <lampert.doug@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:f7774b69-dbae-46cf-be31-24e80ccddfb2@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Car drivers subsidize mass transit. This isn't a secret, AFAIK the
>>> federal hiway fund and most state hiway funds are entirely paid
>>> for
>>> by
>>> taxes on gas and diesel fuel and those funds are regularly raided
>>> for
>>> funds for mass transit systems.
>>
>>And to the extent that mass transit takes cars off congested
>>highways,
>>they get value for it.
>
> By that reasoning, the mass transit system should subsidize auto
> sales, since each car on the road takes a load off the system that
> Keith says is too crowded to provide decent service, AND lower their
> financial burden since they are losing money on each fare.

Mass transit doesn't lose money on each fare, since the marginal cost
of each additional passenger is close to zero. It may lose money
systemwide, but the question becomes whethere the utility it provides
is greater or smaller than that cost, and part of that utility is the
savings in traffic congestion.

On Dec 19, 5:24 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> "DougL" <lampert.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f7774b69-dbae-46cf-be31-24e80ccddfb2@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Car drivers subsidize mass transit. This isn't a secret, AFAIK the
> > federal hiway fund and most state hiway funds are entirely paid for
> > by
> > taxes on gas and diesel fuel and those funds are regularly raided
> > for
> > funds for mass transit systems.
>
> And to the extent that mass transit takes cars off congested highways,
> they get value for it.

Using auto taxes to subsidize transit isn't an obviously bad idea and
I have no objection to gas taxes being used to subsidize such systems
(heck, I'd have no objection to an added $2/gallon federal gas tax for
general revenue with a four year or so phase in).

I agree that transportion infrastructure is in fact a reasonable
federal activity. And I agree that a tax on fuel is a reasonable way
to pay for transportation infrastructure. But I strongly object to
being told that when I and other users pay far MORE in use taxes than
the entire cost of building and maintaing the system we're using and
nominally paying the use tax to pay for that we're being subsidized.
No we're the ones paying a subsidy, that we get part of it back isn't
a subsidy to us.

DougL

In message
<f7774b69-dbae-46cf-be31-24e80ccddfb2@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
DougL <lampert.doug@gmail.com> writes
>Car drivers also subsidize heavy trucks, since the claim I've seen is
>that heavy trucks damage the roads more than their fuel taxes are
>worth.

I recall a New Scientist article that said that the road damage scales
as the fourth power of the axle load, so that (say) a 4-ton, 4-wheel van
does more than 200 times the damage of a 1-ton car.

I've often thought that vehicle licensing charges ought to scale in the
same way. We could use a nominal charge of, say, $1/year for a bicycle
to work out the actual sums involved.
--
David Allsopp

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:03:00 -0800, David Harmon <source@netcom.com>
wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:41:26 GMT in rec.arts.sf.written, David
>Johnston <david@block.net> wrote,
>>On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:12:39 -0800, David Harmon <source@netcom.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:05:05 -0800 in rec.arts.sf.written, "Mike
>>>Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote,
>>>>
>>>>"David Harmon" <source@netcom.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:13mip76ds1ls42c@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>>Not to mention massive subsidies from government at every level.
>>>>>
>>>>> That, of course, is a bad thing.
>>>>
>>>>Because private cars aren't subsidized? (Hint: who pays for roads,
>>>
>>>Mainly paid for by gas/fuel tax.
>>>
>>
>>Which makes it no less a subsidy.
>
>It sure as hell does make it less a subsidy. It's not flawless, but
>to a first approximation drivers pay for the roads in proportion to
>the amount they use the roads, when they buy fuel.

Not even to a first approximation. 90% or so of road damage is done by the
trucks, and their diesel doesn't bring in anywhere *close* to that
percentage of fuel taxes.

Jasper

On 19 Dec 2007 20:00:14 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
wrote:

>Considering that the capital costs of Metro's parking lots should all
>be paid off by now, as should all other capital costs, Metro should be
>making a mint from all this income. (Who else gets away with selling
>more seats than they have? Airlines, maybe, but they generally refund
>the ticket price if there's no seat for you -- and even provide
>vouchers.) Instead, Metro repeatedly claims to be desperately short
>of money, and keep raising their rates.

Keith, Public Transport *doesn't sell seats*. They sell a place on the
train/bus and they may or may not provide a number of seats inside the
bucket for those who were smart enough to score one.

Jasper

David Allsopp <daa@tranquillity-software.ltd.uk> wrote:
> I recall a New Scientist article that said that the road damage
> scales as the fourth power of the axle load, so that (say) a 4-ton,
> 4-wheel van does more than 200 times the damage of a 1-ton car.

> I've often thought that vehicle licensing charges ought to scale in
> the same way. We could use a nominal charge of, say, $1/year for a
> bicycle to work out the actual sums involved.

By the fourth power rule, if a 30 pound bicycle with a 170 pound rider
does $1 damage in a year, then a car weighing ten times as much does
$10,000 damage in a year. Even more if, as seems likely, it's driven
more miles than the bicycle.

I don't think so.

Sales tax is collected on each new bicycle. Why not set aside one
percent of that sales tax to cover all the damage that will be done
by the bicycle over its lifetime?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:23:26 +0100 in rec.arts.sf.written, Jasper
Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote,
>On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:03:00 -0800, David Harmon <source@netcom.com>
>wrote:
>>On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:41:26 GMT in rec.arts.sf.written, David
>>Johnston <david@block.net> wrote,
>>>On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:12:39 -0800, David Harmon <source@netcom.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:05:05 -0800 in rec.arts.sf.written, "Mike
>>>>Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote,
>>>>>
>>>>>"David Harmon" <source@netcom.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:13mip76ds1ls42c@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>>>Not to mention massive subsidies from government at every level.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That, of course, is a bad thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>Because private cars aren't subsidized? (Hint: who pays for roads,
>>>>
>>>>Mainly paid for by gas/fuel tax.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Which makes it no less a subsidy.
>>
>>It sure as hell does make it less a subsidy. It's not flawless, but
>>to a first approximation drivers pay for the roads in proportion to
>>the amount they use the roads, when they buy fuel.
>
>Not even to a first approximation. 90% or so of road damage is done by the
>trucks, and their diesel doesn't bring in anywhere *close* to that
>percentage of fuel taxes.

Apples and oranges. The trucks you are writing of don't generally
count as "private cars." In fact, you are supporting the point that
private cars subsidize other vehicles.
,

"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote in
news:fkcequ$mtb$1@panix2.panix.com:

>snip<
>
> The system ought to be making enough of a profit that they can
> reinvest the profit to build new capacity to keep up with increasing
> demand. Instead, they claim to lose more money with each additional
> passenger. Gross, shameful, incompetence.

If it were incompetence, there ought to be private companies lobbying for
the right to run transit systems in the cities that don't have them.

That it isn't happening is a clue to you that the economics of transit are
different than what you imagine.