> Don't get me wrong, although I expect you already have. . . .


Not at all.

But please; don't get me wrong either. The "math challenged dimrod" comment referred to somebody else; specifically, the guy claiming that two thirds plus at the poles, somehow amounts to zero support.

And you are right! Regardless of what drives the capital costs, somebody must pay them.

If the services were provided by private enterprise; private investors front the capital. But they would then expect to be paid back over time - plus some. All of that usually comes out out of the farebox, but sometimes is due to speculative stock transactions (until the bubble bursts, as it always does). Non-rider benefits accruing to the public are often then free to the public at large. - whoo-hoo!

If the services were provided as a public works; then usually, private bond holders front the capital. It must of course, then be paid back over time with interest, by taxes; but taxpayers too, will expect some sort of benefit to return to them, even if it is not a subsidized ride, or even a directly monetary benefit. These non-rider non-direct benefits could include traffic relief (BART takes 10,000 rush hour cars off sr24, leaving 12,000 still on it), slowed highway expansion, much less environmental impact, facilitation of greater commerce, etc, etc..

Note that these non-rider benefits accrue to the public, regardless of which capitalization model is used.

But as you say, the capital costs must be paid, or the enterprise sinks.

OPB