 |
Re: Funding/subsidies worry potential partners in California's bullet train project
Author: J C Koans
Date: 10-18-2015 - 11:42
fkrock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> J C Koans Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Bob Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> >
> > Dunno...
> > if a long ago built/paid for rail system such
> as
> > METRA, serving 10's of thousands of riders a
> day
> > requires govn't subsides, how can a new,
> expensive
> > service, serving maybe a 10th of METRA
> ridership
> > survive on ticket sales alone?
>
> Except for San Francisco Municipal Railway and a
> very few others, public transportation originally
> was supplied by profit making private companies. A
> round trip streetcar fair used about 10% of an
> average daily wage in 1900. Calculate how much it
> would cost today using a local daily average
> wage.
>
> Streetcar fares usually were set by elected
> officials. They realized what would happen to them
> at the next election if they raised the fares.
>
> Eventually almost all the public transportation
> companies were losing money. They were taken over
> by local governments because public transportation
> was a necessity. Today the public subsidy is
> justified as saving the cost of building
> additional freeways through cities.
I pretty much agree... what constitutes suburban Chicago today was dependent on the profit seeking RI, CB&Q, C&NW RRs, et al.
Somewhere along the way, 60's/70's I'd say, ticket revenue didn't cover operating costs. Hence the RTA and later Metra.
And yes, out here subsidies are justified, and probably rightly so, as a way of removing rush hour traffic off the local highway network, which for all practical purposes, can't be expanded.
Sadly, in the end, commuter rail works only so far... people still prefer to drive into the city.
-------------------------------------------------------
> J C Koans Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Bob Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> >
> > Dunno...
> > if a long ago built/paid for rail system such
> as
> > METRA, serving 10's of thousands of riders a
> day
> > requires govn't subsides, how can a new,
> expensive
> > service, serving maybe a 10th of METRA
> ridership
> > survive on ticket sales alone?
>
> Except for San Francisco Municipal Railway and a
> very few others, public transportation originally
> was supplied by profit making private companies. A
> round trip streetcar fair used about 10% of an
> average daily wage in 1900. Calculate how much it
> would cost today using a local daily average
> wage.
>
> Streetcar fares usually were set by elected
> officials. They realized what would happen to them
> at the next election if they raised the fares.
>
> Eventually almost all the public transportation
> companies were losing money. They were taken over
> by local governments because public transportation
> was a necessity. Today the public subsidy is
> justified as saving the cost of building
> additional freeways through cities.
I pretty much agree... what constitutes suburban Chicago today was dependent on the profit seeking RI, CB&Q, C&NW RRs, et al.
Somewhere along the way, 60's/70's I'd say, ticket revenue didn't cover operating costs. Hence the RTA and later Metra.
And yes, out here subsidies are justified, and probably rightly so, as a way of removing rush hour traffic off the local highway network, which for all practical purposes, can't be expanded.
Sadly, in the end, commuter rail works only so far... people still prefer to drive into the city.
