• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the government be in charge of public transportation?

Was government takeover of transit a good idea?

  • Total voters
    30
phattonez said:
I just want to know how far you're willing to interpret things in the constitution.
Click to expand...
I'll take it on a case by case basis, but to point out every time you talk about the constitution, you're interpreting it. Everyone.


Consumers would choose in a free market.
Click to expand...

Like I said, if you think you can do better you're welcome to, but what I'm most concerned about is making sure people can get around cheaply, and the current system does that.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Like I said, if you think you can do better you're welcome to, but what I'm most concerned about is making sure people can get around cheaply, and the current system does that.
Click to expand...

And it encourages a kind of living that isn't sustainable. When it's cheaper than it should be, then you have people living further away from their jobs than they should be.
 
phattonez said:
So what are the problems specifically with private ownership of transit?
Click to expand...

It will end up being a monopoly due to the barriers of entry associated with diminishing returns to scale(as more and more firms enter the market) . Even if multiple firms orginate, horizontal integration is the future because of the nature of such a transportation industry.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
It will end up being a monopoly due to the barriers of entry associated with diminishing returns to scale(as more and more firms enter the market) . Even if multiple firms orginate, horizontal integration is the future because of the nature of such a transportation industry.
Click to expand...

I think that this is still under the framework of roads that are paid for by a gas tax. If we had roads that were tolled based on traffic capacity (or other measures, if it was run like a private company) then the rail line would also have to compete with the road. It's not really a monopoly at that point.
 
phattonez said:
I think that this is still under the framework of roads that are paid for by a gas tax. If we had roads that were tolled based on traffic capacity (or other measures, if it was run like a private company) then the rail line would also have to compete with the road. It's not really a monopoly at that point.
Click to expand...

Vertical competition? Sounds iffy to me.
 
Last edited:
Is there a single govt run transit system in the country that isn't in the red every year without jacking up rates?
 
phattonez said:
And it encourages a kind of living that isn't sustainable. When it's cheaper than it should be, then you have people living further away from their jobs than they should be.
Click to expand...

It's not as simple as you make it out to be. Lots of people who take the bus live in poorer neighborhoods. There's not a lot of jobs in those neighborhoods. The bus lets them go to where the jobs are. For instance, take a mall. A mall easily has hundreds of jobs there. People come from all over the city to work at a busy mall, and the bus system makes sure people from poorer neighborhoods can go to job clusters like a mall. If poorer people (who are more likely to not drive) are limited to their neighborhoods, there's not much they can do. And if they can't get to where the jobs are, they can't contribute to the economy, or make enough to life themselves to a higher rung on the ladder.
 
the makeout hobo said:
It's not as simple as you make it out to be. Lots of people who take the bus live in poorer neighborhoods. There's not a lot of jobs in those neighborhoods. The bus lets them go to where the jobs are. For instance, take a mall. A mall easily has hundreds of jobs there. People come from all over the city to work at a busy mall, and the bus system makes sure people from poorer neighborhoods can go to job clusters like a mall. If poorer people (who are more likely to not drive) are limited to their neighborhoods, there's not much they can do. And if they can't get to where the jobs are, they can't contribute to the economy, or make enough to life themselves to a higher rung on the ladder.
Click to expand...

Could that have anything to do with subsidized transportation?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Vertical competition? Sounds iffy to me.
Click to expand...

It's what government transit agencies are effectively trying to do now; get more people on rail by taking people off of the road.
 
phattonez said:
The reason that poor areas are so far away from job centers.
Click to expand...

If by job centers you are referring to cities, why is it uber important for the poor to concentrate in cities? My response to your question in this post depends on this clarification.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
If by job centers you are referring to cities, why is it uber important for the poor to concentrate in cities? My response to your question in this post depends on this clarification.
Click to expand...

Much of how we think of cities today are because of government planning. Central business districts are not very efficient in terms of moving people, yet it's what we developed in every major city. With private ownership or smarter public ownership, we would see more blending between residential and commercial.
 
phattonez said:
Much of how we think of cities today are because of government planning. Central business districts are not very efficient in terms of moving people, yet it's what we developed in every major city. With private ownership or smarter public ownership, we would see more blending between residential and commercial.
Click to expand...

Americas reliance on the automobile is what allows people to live spread out, poor or not. If anything, i would bet public transportation pulls those of poverty into cities with a much cheaper alternative in the form of non profit public transportation. And yet.....

It is in the best interest for those in poverty to move out of the cities. The cost of living within area's of great human concentration is well known/documented to be much higher than its opposite. Therefore it is the cheap gasoline cost that allows people to maximize their utility (lower cost of living) and travel to areas where employment is more affluent (job centers).
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Americas reliance on the automobile is what allows people to live spread out, poor or not. If anything, i would bet public transportation pulls those of poverty into cities with a much cheaper alternative in the form of non profit public transportation. And yet.....

It is in the best interest for those in poverty to move out of the cities. The cost of living within area's of great human concentration is well known/documented to be much higher than its opposite. Therefore it is the cheap gasoline cost that allows people to maximize their utility (lower cost of living) and travel to areas where employment is more affluent (job centers).
Click to expand...

That's assuming a flat rate for miles driven depending on gas consumption. In a city with market-priced roads, you wouldn't have that. It would be far cheaper to drive outside of the city than inside of the city.
 
phattonez said:
That's assuming a flat rate for miles driven depending on gas consumption.
Click to expand...

What:confused:

In a city with market-priced roads, you wouldn't have that. It would be far cheaper to drive outside of the city than inside of the city.
Click to expand...

A city with market priced roads (as a serious %) does not exist, so your statement is really just speculation (mental masturbation IMHO). It cost more to live in cities from all aspects except when we consider public transportation. Can you provide any sort of evidence to the contrary?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
What:confused:
Click to expand...

A gas tax as the price for the road you're driving on.

A city with market priced roads (as a serious %) does not exist, so your statement is really just speculation (mental masturbation IMHO). It cost more to live in cities from all aspects except when we consider public transportation. Can you provide any sort of evidence to the contrary?
Click to expand...

You have to look at what kind of development is more expensive: dense urban development or sprawl development? By all accounts, sprawl is much more expensive.
 
phattonez said:
The reason that poor areas are so far away from job centers.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. I mean, most poor parts of town are older parts of the city that have fallen into disrepair... jobs don't go there because the people are usually too poor to afford the services or because the area isn't a "good part of town", and because jobs cluster together because it is better for business. I don't see how the bussing system has anything to do with this.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Americas reliance on the automobile is what allows people to live spread out, poor or not. If anything, i would bet public transportation pulls those of poverty into cities with a much cheaper alternative in the form of non profit public transportation. And yet.....

It is in the best interest for those in poverty to move out of the cities. The cost of living within area's of great human concentration is well known/documented to be much higher than its opposite. Therefore it is the cheap gasoline cost that allows people to maximize their utility (lower cost of living) and travel to areas where employment is more affluent (job centers).
Click to expand...

I don't know if that's always true. If you live in the "bad part of town", it can be pretty cheap. And the problem with living in the suburbs is that if the price of gas goes up, like it did recently, you are very much out of luck. I know people who drive an hour into Sacramento every day, and they were hurting very bad when gas was almost 5 a gallon.
 
I am sick of government control










Click Me Please
 
the makeout hobo said:
I would love to see someone start an anarchist utopia to see how it'd work. What's with the dragon egg by the way
Click to expand...

it is supposed to be like a signature but it wouln't work for some reason idk







Click Me Please
 
the makeout hobo said:
I doubt it. I mean, most poor parts of town are older parts of the city that have fallen into disrepair... jobs don't go there because the people are usually too poor to afford the services or because the area isn't a "good part of town", and because jobs cluster together because it is better for business. I don't see how the bussing system has anything to do with this.
Click to expand...

Having jobs concentrated in one area makes for a very nasty commute. You have underused lanes going the other way and lanes over capacity going the main way. It's an inefficient way to have a city move.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom