Nationalise the railways!

[Tamas]

Public transport, major infrastructure projects, and basic education would be by far the most challenging to reasonably put out into 100% private operation. I am not sure I would dismiss the option completely just because of this, but still.

As for turning profit for public transport, I think that is a bit blurry. There are arguments for keeping it as cheap for customers as possible as a sort of economic incentive.
However, today's "profit" could become tomorrow's investment in upgrades and modernisation. I understand you do not really need that when you can just have more tax money for those, and you get to have people who do not actually use the service contribute to keeping it in good shape (ain't that jolly good), but maybe it would be more just to at least try to make these services economically viable, where it is possible?

[Tamas]

Ewwww, trains. Only buses are worse.

Buses are terrible. Trains are awesome.

[Iormlund]

However, today's "profit" could become tomorrow's investment in upgrades and modernisation.

And today's "losses" could become tomorrow's wider tax base.

[Maladict]

I touched on it in an article I wrote a while back, but I'm still none the wiser.

http://www.newstatesman.com/business/2013/03/how-getting-low-down-rail-fares-might-make-passengers-worse

[/quote]

Thanks, nice article. It will be of some help next time

However,

our continental counterparts offer far less frequent trains

really? I remember dropping parts of itineraries for lack of suitable departures.

[Tamas]

However, today's "profit" could become tomorrow's investment in upgrades and modernisation.

And today's "losses" could become tomorrow's wider tax base.

Make food free as well then. And housing.

[Josquius]

However, today's "profit" could become tomorrow's investment in upgrades and modernisation.

And today's "losses" could become tomorrow's wider tax base.

Make food free as well then. And housing.

Nobody suggested making railways free. That's silly.
And it is actually pretty common for governments to provide subsidised housing for the poor, and I suppose one could call income support subsised food (some countries even make the link even more obvious with food stamps)

[Tamas]

However, today's "profit" could become tomorrow's investment in upgrades and modernisation.

And today's "losses" could become tomorrow's wider tax base.

Make food free as well then. And housing.

Nobody suggested making railways free. That's silly.
And it is actually pretty common for governments to provide subsidised housing for the poor, and I suppose one could call income support subsised food (some countries even make the link even more obvious with food stamps)

well if deficit spending on communal services is a net positive economically, we should go wild.

[garbon]

Tamas, can I ask, what are you arguing for now? I'm a bit lost.

[Tamas]

Tamas, can I ask, what are you arguing for now? I'm a bit lost.

Nothing. I was bored.

[Capetan Mihali]

It is true that the fares have been at many points, lower than those in Boston. We also don't have any sense of zones (or distance sort of as SF does with BART) as same 2.50 will get you to all stops.

Used to be two tokens to get to Far Rockaway back in the old days.  But I like the NYC system.  Especially since it doesn't penalize the more working-class people living deep in the outer boroughs while holding down a job in Manhattan.

[garbon]

But I like the NYC system.  Especially since it doesn't penalize the more working-class people living deep in the outer boroughs while holding down a job in Manhattan.

Yes. Unlike other systems that penalize outlying areas, it does take into account that many of those who work in central locations will need to travel from far away.

[grumbler]

And today's "losses" could become tomorrow's wider tax base.

Possibly, but nor probably, and there are few who would try to justify infrastructure on that basis.  Today's losses on mass transit are today's savings on not having to construct more roads.

The problem with private transport is that it doesn't capture the externalities that alternate (to the auto, for instance) transport creates.    Public transit diverts public dollars from public roads to public transit subsidies.  No one gains or loses in that exchange except through efficiency (i.e through the mass transit subsidies being less expensive than non-mass-transit subsidies).  when that mass transit subsidy is going instead to a private actor, the private actor has incentive to try to get subsidies that are inefficient.  That, IMO, is why combo-transit systems are so hard to get right.

[MadImmortalMan]

A problem with those calling out for privatization at all costs is the emphasis on profits. The very idea that railways need to turn a profit is fundamentally broken.
You don't want then losing too much money certainly, but they don't need to be profitable any more than sewerage pipes or the fire brigade does.

Profitability is how you know they are serving the people in the best way possible. It makes sense to run one or two lines at a loss if there is reason, but if the whole system that you pay to ride can't stay in the black the taxpayers aren't getting their money's worth.

[crazy canuck]

A problem with those calling out for privatization at all costs is the emphasis on profits. The very idea that railways need to turn a profit is fundamentally broken.
You don't want then losing too much money certainly, but they don't need to be profitable any more than sewerage pipes or the fire brigade does.

Profitability is how you know they are serving the people in the best way possible. It makes sense to run one or two lines at a loss if there is reason, but if the whole system that you pay to ride can't stay in the black the taxpayers aren't getting their money's worth.

I dont think that logic holds.  Profit does not equal providing the service well or efficiently in the context of public transportation operations or infrastructure development.  Rather it often means the opposite.  Profit is a good indication a private actor is efficient in the context of a marketplace where there is a number of able competitors.  But in the context of public transportation it is more likely an indicator that the operator was able to get someone else to pay for the costs associated with the service rather than having them hit the operator's bottom line.

[Caliga]

Ewwww, trains. Only buses are worse.

Buses are terrible. Trains are awesome.

I ran into Dukakis riding Amtrak a couple of times.