Nationalise the railways!

[grumbler]

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.

That's the kind of thinking that leads to suboptimal allocations of money.  How much profit does a typical highway (say, I-5 from Irvine to downtown LA) make every year?  Or, to use your example, all of the highways in greater LA put together?  None?  Yeah, none.  In fact, they all operate at a massive, massive loss every single year.  Does that mean that the taxpayers are not getting their money's worth?

You have to look at transport as a complete system, not a railway as a stand-alone entity.  Because railroads are not stand-alone, and sometimes it is better to run a bunch of railroads at a loss than to build and maintain ten more lanes of highway because you let some of the railroads go out of business.

[Razgovory]

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

It does, and we do.

[garbon]

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.

NYC isn't in the black but definitely worth it.

[MadImmortalMan]

Almost nowhere is in the black, and they don't really have to be. The farther away from it they are though, the more you know those taxpayers are getting screwed. It's mostly enough that the people managing the railway are afraid of running deficits.

[garbon]

Fares cover less than half of cost of running MTA.

http://www.tstc.org/101/mta.php#profit

[crazy canuck]

Almost nowhere is in the black, and they don't really have to be. The farther away from it they are though, the more you know those taxpayers are getting screwed.

That is a separate issue of how costs should be funded.  It is a huge issue in Vancouver right now.  We are a city of bridges.  Some are tolled and others are not.  The people who pay the tolls rightly point out the unfairness of putting extra costs on them for the maintenance and expansion of the system.

There are a number of models to try to deal with funding.  I dont think anyone has come up with an ideal funding model for transportation.  If you have a model which bases fees on distance travelled then you end up benefiting people who can afford to live close to work and play but then you may also create economic incentives for economic development in outlying areas independent of the city.  The promise of economic development close to home is probably cold comfort to those who still have to travel into the City for their work.

[Sheilbh]

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.

That's a very reductive way of looking at it. On that logic there would be no public transport in rural communities. The old (who travel for free anyway) and the poor would have to depend on their neighbours. It defeats the point of a public transport system which is to provide a service to the public at large, not just the economic lines.

Frankly I'd argue the bits that can stay in the black are probably the bits that can most easily be hived off to the private sector.

There are a number of models to try to deal with funding.  I dont think anyone has come up with an ideal funding model for transportation.  If you have a model which bases fees on distance travelled then you end up benefiting people who can afford to live close to work and play but then you may also create economic incentives for economic development in outlying areas independent of the city.  The promise of economic development close to home is probably cold comfort to those who still have to travel into the City for their work.

And paying by journey doesn't necessarily work if you need to change to get to work which is a problem for the low-paid in London.

For us the system is used - rail journeys have almost doubled in the last 20 years and the public transport in London has been revolutionised since Ken's first term. But it's a challenge to get the balance of public service, profit and investment for the future right. Sadly I think the government's fucking it up. Largely because they're Tories so they live in fear of their local parties turning on them for concreting over a field and but also because neither the government nor Boris seems to have a plan in the first place.

[MadImmortalMan]

That's a very reductive way of looking at it.

Of course it is.

On that logic there would be no public transport in rural communities. The old (who travel for free anyway) and the poor would have to depend on their neighbours. It defeats the point of a public transport system which is to provide a service to the public at large, not just the economic lines.

Not true. You just wouldn't have a whole train serving a town where only five people use it. That's bad for the taxpayers and bad for the environment. Sometimes, the best way to transport is actually a car. The rail network can send regular shuttles to different places, etc. It's a matter of giving the right size service for the customer base. Nowhere need be unserved. It doesn't even need to make money--just lose less.

[Sheilbh]

Not true. You just wouldn't have a whole train serving a town where only five people use it. That's bad for the taxpayers and bad for the environment. Sometimes, the best way to transport is actually a car. The rail network can send regular shuttles to different places, etc. It's a matter of giving the right size service for the customer base. Nowhere need be unserved. It doesn't even need to make money--just lose less.

Not everyone can drive. Especially in this country, especially the old and the poor. Trains don't 'serve' a town they're normally going somewhere else on that route they may very well stop in a town with fewer than five passengers a day - I get the train to Dorset and used to live in the Highlands there are stops where I've never seen anyone get on or off.

But I was actually thinking about rural bus services. I can't drive so I've had to use buses in Dorset and in the vast majority of cases I'm almost certain I'm the only person on there who's paying for the bus. It's either school-kids or the elderly, both of whom get free bus passes.

[MadImmortalMan]

But I was actually thinking about rural bus services. I can't drive so I've had to use buses in Dorset and in the vast majority of cases I'm almost certain I'm the only person on there who's paying for the bus. It's either school-kids or the elderly, both of whom get free bus passes.

Nothing wrong with that. It can even be a complementary service included in the rail fare where it makes sense not to send a train.

[Ed Anger]

Ewwww, trains. Only buses are worse.

Buses are terrible. Trains are awesome.

I ran into Dukakis riding Amtrak a couple of times.

Ugh.

[Razgovory]

I've only ridden a train once in my life (subway does not count!).  I think I was five when I did it.

[Caliga]

Ugh.

What?  He's cool.

[Ed Anger]

Ugh.

What?  He's cool.

Weirdo.

[Valmy]

He made a pretty fearsome tank commander.