In a rational world, we would design transit ONLY for the transit dependent, and those other people who used it would be looked upon with the same scorn and contempt that we now reserve for healthy people that use handicapped parking spaces.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), November 05, 1999.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), November 05, 1999

Answers

I hate to say this but " transit " doesn't rate essntial to me, why can't a private company provide this service. If the demand is there someone will provide it. It is not worth it to me to take money from the poor, sick, rich, old to pay for what a small minority use.

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), November 05, 1999.

I believe it is essential for the transit dependent, for those who cannot drive because of age or infirmity. Others who use it are leeches and should be treated with contempt. Privatizing is a good option and can reduce costs, but subsidizing a safety net for the transit dependent is not unreasonable, IMHO. Building parking garages for park n rides, as we are doing, is dumb as dirt.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), November 05, 1999.

100 years ago, entreprenuer James. J. Hill put a transit system into Washington STate, connecting to points East. It was called the Great Northern Railroad. No taxpayer financing, not subsidized by taxpayers. As a result, our economy boomed. It survived the "Panic of '93", which put government subsidized railroads out of business.

If our ferries and transit systems were run privately, we would not be concerned about the effects of a taxpayer revolt. They would continue to serve the people so that they could continue to make profits. We have gotten ourselves into a jam because we rely on coercively financed transportation systems rather than systems that are rationaly funded.

-- Art Rathjen (liberty@coastaccess.com), November 06, 1999.

"No taxpayer financing, not subsidized by taxpayers." While I agree 100% that the ferries and transit ought to be privatized, the Great Northern received rather substantial subsidies in the form of land grants. For those of you who are interested, the state used a cute trick to get their ferry monopoly. After passing laws favorable to the unions, the state commerce commission would not let the ferry owners raise rates to offset the raises the unions forced. The companies could either sell to the state at fire sale prices, or go broke. They sold, and the WS Ferries have been in bed with the union ever since. From the Wa State DPTFerry website: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/about-wsf/about-40-years.cfm

Labor woes played a big part in getting the state involved in the ferry business. In the late 1940s, ferry workers' unions succeeded in getting higher wages at Puget Sound Navigation, also called Black Ball, the largest provider of service on the Sound. The company then asked the State Highway Department for a 30 percent fare increase to make ends meet. The State approved only a 10 percent increase, and on March 1, 1948, the disgruntled ferry company tied up its boats, bringing much of the cross - Sound service to a halt.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 07, 1999.

"No taxpayer financing, not subsidized by taxpayers." While I agree 100% that the ferries and transit ought to be privatized, the Great Northern received rather substantial subsidies in the form of land grants.

Thank you, Craig.

Oh yes, oh yesssss. Ya beat me to it. And thus begins the whole thread off into Anti-Trust stuff. Yes, the railroads were a classic example of the Government handing out favours to special interests because it was "in the nations best economic interest". This then led to huge disparities and 'anti-competetive' practices, which then had to be put down by the gov't at a later date. It is ever thus: The gov't creates a monopoly with favours and special funding (land grants), then attacks them legally for being a monopoly.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), November 08, 1999.