07-12-2017, 10:56 PM
(07-12-2017, 09:57 PM)tomh009 Wrote: GRT needs to pay its capital as well as operating costs so any shortfall must be covered by the subsidy. There are no other funding mechanisms other than subsidies and fares. (ION has additional subsidies but that's a whole different kettle of fish.)
In any case, the comparison is far too simplistic. Too many assumptions about costs, and it doesn't consider the fact that cars provide both local and distance transportation whereas GRT is local only. A serious comparison would take some significant work, though.
It's not just work, there are fundamental disagreements that prevent this analysis from even being possible in a real sense. We've shown that in past iterations of this argument here. I feel like if I get $5000 of benefit from the public road system and I pay $5000 of my money to the Government that is used to provide that benefit - that its silly to say I'm being massively subsidized just because the money is coming from me as a 'tax payer' and the benefit is coming to me as a 'road user'. (Note: This works for other things too, I pay more than 'my share' of health care costs so its silly to say I get subsidized health care just because I don't pay any direct costs when I go to the hospital). Other people disagree (and with some reasonable arguments).
But these sorts of articles don't help at all. They're so biased and simplistic that they're never going to convince anyone that doesn't already drink their kool aid. It's the same as people railing against the subsidies of public transportation claiming they get no benefit from it.