• 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

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,246
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
First off, just let me say that I hate saying public transportation because it has a negative connotation associated with it. I prefer the term transit. That said, do you support the government taking over intercity rail and bus travel?

"In June 1940, the transportation assets of the former BMT and IRT systems were taken over by the City of New York for operation by the City's Board of Transportation, which already operated the IND system. In 1953 the New York City Transit Authority, a state agency incorporated for the benefit of the city, now known to the public as MTA New York City Transit, succeeded the BoT.

A combination of factors had this takeover coincide with the end of the major rapid transit building eras in New York City. The City immediately began to eliminate what it considered redundancy in the system, closing several elevated lines including the IRT Ninth Avenue Line and most of the IRT Second Avenue El in Manhattan, and the BMT Fifth and Third Avenue Lines and most of the BMT Fulton Street Line in Brooklyn."

History of the New York City Subway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
2nd avenue subway:

"The construction of the Second Avenue line would add another two tracks to fill the gap that has existed since the elevated IRT Second Avenue Line was demolished in 1940-42 and the IRT Third Avenue Line was removed in 1955-56."

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway]Second Avenue Subway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Guess who approved the demolition? The government. Great idea!
 
Public transportation is an essential service and the private sector will not be as efficient to manage it. There should be some players from both govt and private sectors competing to raise standards.
 
Public transportation is an essential service and the private sector will not be as efficient to manage it. There should be some players from both govt and private sectors competing to raise standards.

Do you have an argument to support that claim?
 
Much of it can only exist with government because it can force people who don't take mass transit to pay for those who do.
 
Much of it can only exist with government because it can force people who don't take mass transit to pay for those who do.

And that's desirable?
 
Which is what?

80% here rely on public transport. Private sector don't have the means and expertese to build and manage a MRT system and implement ERP system. Bus services were bad some 15 years ago until the govt chipped in with expertise and even bought over one of the bus companies.
 
Yes and no. Depends. Public transport is as much politically motivated as it is a service for the people.

There are many aspects of public transport and some of them are not profitable, but are needed. Bus services in rural areas for example, school bus systems and so on.

So it is not as cut and dry, black and white. You can easily have a private run company run a public transport system for a public owned/run mother organisation for example. Or have a public transport company on the stock market where the state owns 51%.

The problem is the role of public transport. In most countries it is not only supplying transport in high population areas, but also in rural low population areas. And the latter is not always profitable, but it is seen socially and politically as a necessary cost.

But every country is different.. or rather, the US vs every other country is different. The dependence of American's on the car hurts public transport more than anything and especially investment.

In Europe for example, public transport is an integral part of every city and often of every rural town as well. And it is only growing since the massive investment in high speed rail across Europe.

Now in Europe private companies have far from been successful in running a whole sector. The governments has in most cases either run the public transport system as a company in it self, or had an umbrella organisation that set the terms and conditions for what is required of the public transport system and then outsourced the routes individually or in bulk to private companies. This is mostly done in bus public transport.

The UK tried privatising train service and it has been an utter failure. The UK has some of the most expensive train service in Europe (non Underground) and only last month the government were forced to take over one of the key train lines in the country because the private company gave up.

On the flip side, you have the London Underground or the high speed rail system in France and Spain. The French system, run by publicly owned trade company, has a yearly profit of 1 billion Euros on average and increasing.

But one of the biggest issues with public transport, especially rail.. infrastructure. Investing in infrastructure for rail is expensive, and often the existing rail is some what public owned in the first place.
 
I take public transit. Now it is extremely important to me to be able to get from one end of this city to the other. Furthermore, seeing as my job and school are on the other end of the city, it makes financial sense for me to be able to get there. If we have a public transit that is any higher than neccessary, than it makes it impractical for me to get to the other side of town to contribute to the economy. And before you get on me for not working or schooling close to home, there's personal reasons for that which are none of your concern. So its in the best interest for public transit to be cheap, and the government is better for having cheap transit.
 
I've lived in cities where public transportation is handled by private organizations and I've found that it's almost always lacking. The oversight is all internal and public feedback on pressing needs is sometimes ignored. On the other hand, I'm in favour of a balance. Since most rails are municipal, state, or even federal property, I'm in favour of private organizations leasing the rails, and the government controls how long they can use them. In such cases that an organization is doing a bad job, it can have its permits revoked and public transportation transferred to government hands.

I find governments tend to have a bigger vested interest in transportation infrastructure because there is a direct relationship with economic efficiency; that, and the public is entitled to provide feedback on projects which makes planned routes more practical. I've seen private companies create new rail lines in locations that make no sense whatsoever, wasting billions in the process.
 
Now what is stopping any private company that wants to from opening up a bus route if they think they can do it better?
 
Now what is stopping any private company that wants to from opening up a bus route if they think they can do it better?

The fact that government competition is far too low below market rates plus road/auto transportation is dominant and subsidized because of government intervention.
 
The fact that government competition is far too low below market rates plus road/auto transportation is dominant and subsidized because of government intervention.

So what you're saying is that a private bus system would be too expensive compared to the current system. right?
 
No.

Amtrack LOSES $430 for each trip to San Antonio from Los Angeles....it costs half as much as that to fly instead.

Ergo, Amtrak should not be running trains from LA to San Antonio, it should be paying people fifty bucks to fly. The taxpayer would come out ahead.
 
Public transportation is an essential service and the private sector will not be as efficient to manage it. There should be some players from both govt and private sectors competing to raise standards.

If it was so essential, why didn't the federal government do it under Thomas Jefferson?
 
80% here rely on public transport. Private sector don't have the means and expertese to build and manage a MRT system and implement ERP system. Bus services were bad some 15 years ago until the govt chipped in with expertise and even bought over one of the bus companies.

Jeepneys worked quite well in Subic Bay.

Why couldn't they work in Singapore?
 
I take public transit. Now it is extremely important to me to be able to get from one end of this city to the other. Furthermore, seeing as my job and school are on the other end of the city, it makes financial sense for me to be able to get there. If we have a public transit that is any higher than neccessary, than it makes it impractical for me to get to the other side of town to contribute to the economy. And before you get on me for not working or schooling close to home, there's personal reasons for that which are none of your concern. So its in the best interest for public transit to be cheap, and the government is better for having cheap transit.

There's absolutely no reason why public transit should be run at a cost to peole who do not actually ride the planes, trains, or automobiles. That means you should be paying 100% of the cost of hauling your butt from one side of town to the other, or, rather, the costs of all ridership should be adjusted so that the net operating expenses are balanced by the transit companies combined revenues from fares, advertising, and other fees.

The guy driving his car in to work from the 'burbs should in no way be burdened with your lifestyle choices.

Governments should not own businesses, but if they do, that's how they should be run.
 
What, in the day before automated transportation?

We don't have automated transportation now.

We have bus drivers and pilots and etc how run the machines.

They're no different than the guys who drove the horse drawn wagons.

Where do you think the word "Teamster" came from?
 
We don't have automated transportation now.

We have bus drivers and pilots and etc how run the machines.

They're no different than the guys who drove the horse drawn wagons.

Where do you think the word "Teamster" came from?

The demands of a major industrialized, urban, interconnected society is much different than those of a small, decentralized rural society.
 
So what you're saying is that a private bus system would be too expensive compared to the current system. right?

No.

What he said was the monopoly already in place prohibits effective competition.

Naturally, said monopoly requires government force to exist, but that's true of all coercive monopolies.
 
The demands of a major industrialized, urban, interconnected society is much different than those of a small, decentralized rural society.

No, they're not.

People have to get to work, they either move their own bodies or pay someone to move them.

But clearly the people that founded the United States figured that it wasn't the government's job to move people around.

You'll note they didn't create any government subsidized passenger runs from Baltimore to Liverpool in the 1790's. If some girl wanted to go see where the Beatles would be playing 170 years in the future, she had to buy her own ticket to ride.

(ahem)

So, the United States was founded in part on the assumption that people who wanted to travel could do so at their own expense....or STAY HOME.

That's a good idea, we should have stuck with it.
 
Back
Top Bottom