Cracking Atlanta Subway's Poorly-Encrypted RFID Smart Cards Is a Breeze, Part II

McGruber (1417641) writes In December 2013, Slashdot reported the arrest of seven metro Atlanta residents for allegedly selling counterfeit MARTA Breeze cards, stored-value smart cards that passengers use as part of an automated fare collection system on Atlanta's subway. Now, six months later (June 2014), the seven suspects have finally been indicted. According to the indictment, the co-conspirators purchased legitimate Breeze cards for $1, then fraudulently placed unlimited or monthly rides on the cards. They then sold the fraudulent cards to MARTA riders for a discounted cash price. Distributors of the fraudulent cards were stationed at several subway stations. The indictment claims that the ring called their organization the "Underground Railroad."

Comments

Not counterfeit

[Anonymous Coward]

The cards were original, not counterfeit.

Re:Not counterfeit

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who talks in leet speak (or doge) needs to be kicked in the nuts.

Re: Not counterfeit

[Anonymous Coward]

This

Re:Not counterfeit

[NemoinSpace]

AND read the article??? Telling someone to STFU is standard fare. Let's not heap unreasonable demands on top. It just adds injury to insult.
The noob remark is just poor form.

Re:Not counterfeit

[NemoinSpace]

Dear mods, please understand that suppressing comments to -1 really messes up a threads continuity. Some of us come here to relax with some light reading. We don't have all day to constantly tweak our settings. If I wanted to ruin my Slashdot experience, i don't need you guys to do it, I would just use beta. Thanxbye

Re: Not counterfeit

[Anonymous Coward]

This WHAT?

Why don't you get out from behind your keyboard and fight like a man with fists!

Re:Not counterfeit

[Anonymous Coward]

At least he didn't call you a nubmuffin.

Re: Not counterfeit

[Anonymous Coward]

If he won't I will. Meet me in Market Square in downtown Pittsburgh tomorrow at noon. I'll be wearing a white tshirt with Yoda on the front. Make sure your health insurance is up to date and please use sunscreen. Living in your Mom's basement for so long leaves you vulnerable to UV.

Re:Not counterfeit

[Anonymous Coward]

Much violence. Wow

Re: Not counterfeit

[Anonymous Coward]

OK. I'll be in front of the Oyster House in a Marine uniform with 6 of my buddies.

Re:Not counterfeit

[wonkey_monkey]

Telling someone to STFU is standard fare.

Get one of these cards, and you can do it as many times as you like.

Re: Not counterfeit

[Anonymous Coward]

M.A.R.I.N.E. == Men Always Riding In Navy Equipment. What does shit sound like when it hits the fan? MAAAAAAARINE.

Re:Not counterfeit

[Anonymous Coward]

STFU and read the article n00b.

You must be new here.

Re: Not counterfeit

[Anonymous Coward]

You're funny. And kinda fucked up. Were you dropped on your head as a child? Does mental retardation run in your family? I'm guessing you and/or your mother sniff gasoline. Have a nice day!

Re: Not counterfeit

[Anonymous Coward]

OK. I'll be in front of the Oyster House in a Marine uniform with 6 of my buddies.

It takes you and 6 Marines to fight against one geek? Better stay home in the basement before you hurt yourself climbing the stairs.

Re: Not counterfeit

[Austrian Anarchy]

OK. I'll be in front of the Oyster House in a Marine uniform with 6 of my buddies.

This is a version of cosplay that they could have done better with you as a consultant in the film Philadelphia.

Re:Not counterfeit

[Anonymous Coward]

can i haz cheezwhiz licked off muh nutz?

Underground railroad

[Anonymous Coward]

Best gang name ever.

Real story

[linebackn]

I think the real story here is that someone in Atlanta figured out how to use a computer. :P

Re:Real story

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? Atlanta is one of the major tech hubs of the US.

Re:Real story

[davester666]

Which is pretty sad, when you combine the parent and grandparent comments....

Re:Real story

[Anonymous Coward]

Was that intended as a dig against Atlanta's significant African-American population? It sure came across that way.

Re:Real story

[Fjandr]

No, it was probably a dig against the South in general.

Re:Real story

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they can use computers in Atlanta. Where do you think GNAA was founded?!

Re:Real story

[Registered Coward v2]

I think the real story here is that someone in Atlanta figured out how to use a computer. :P

Nah, it's MARTA. If the did figure out how to use a computer they'd just use to figure how to make the service suck even more.

Re:Real story

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh - so it's simplistic, lazy stereotyping of a group, but not the really offensive version.

The REAL value of the transit system

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Atlanta should try to learn from this situation.

They found the REAL value of the transit system. The price people were willing to purchase the "counterfeit" cards is much closer to what the general public is willing to pay for "legitimate" cards and they will probably have more riders at that price and as a result, more revenue. Adjust your costs to fit this selling price instead of running things the other way around.

They can probably even learn a thing or two about the ring's distribution system.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

mass transit is already hugely subsidized...

The "price" of a good in a market is not merely what people want to pay for it. For example, how many people would buy a yacht for 100 dollars? Probably a lot more then buy one now at its current price of about 10 million to 100 million dollars depending on how big it is... but can you charge 100 dollars to sell yachets? No... you won't even break even on the costs.

And that is a major issue in mass transit. Most mass transit systems do NOT break even after collecting all the tickets and passes. Nearly all of them must subsidize their costs with taxes. And some of them even take money from federal and state programs because the systems are not actually affordable even using city taxes without adding money from the federal and state governments.

As such, saying "hey they should just lower prices" is not really rational.

To actually establish your idea here you'd first have to float the whole system on nothing but those passes and ticket revenue. ZERO subsidization. Then you could charge a market price for those tickets.

And if the ticket revenue fell below what it cost to build and maintain the system then it would shut down for lack of funding the same way companies do that can't get enough sales to pay for operations.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Anonymous Coward]

So if they lowered their prices to match that of the counterfeit cards, would that then mean people would no longer chose to pay even less if a new counterfeit ring popped up? Or would you argue they lower their prices again because someone else starts selling counterfeit cards even cheaper? If the cards are easy enough to reprogram, and a criminal is desperate enough to not factor risks into their costs, they can go cheaper and cheaper, virtually to the point of the $1 cost for them to get the cards. Just because people are always willing to pay less for something doesn't mean it is necessarily overvalued.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course that viewpoint is really nothing more than over-simplified libertarian fantasy. A reasonably implemented subway doesn't just benefit the direct users, it does things like reduce air pollution and increase the utility of the real estate around it. That means that people who don't even use the subway benefit from it and so it is a public good. That's not a dig against libertarians, the smart ones understand public goods. Its only the recent converts who are overzealous in their simplified view of the world who have a problem figuring it out.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Intron]

mass transit is already hugely subsidized...

The "price" of a good in a market is not merely what people want to pay for it. For example, how many people would buy a yacht for 100 dollars? Probably a lot more then buy one now at its current price of about 10 million to 100 million dollars depending on how big it is... but can you charge 100 dollars to sell yachets? No... you won't even break even on the costs.

and yet this is exactly the model for phones and printers. Sell below cost and have a captive revenue stream.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[koreanbabykilla]

where i live the bus is always at around 10% capacity. The people on it are low income people with free passes. They charge me more to get to work than it costs in gas. I do only get 15 mpg, but own the car outright. Charge me 1 dollar there and back and i can put up with the order of magnitude time cost increase. I bet busses would be full and not just a crazy tax sinkhole then....

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[PopeRatzo]

mass transit is already hugely subsidized...

As is automobile travel and air travel and train travel.

I don't know how much a bicycle is subsidized, but it probably is to a certain extent.

I would be that a lot more money comes out of the public coffers to subsidized automobile travel than mass transit.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Bitbeard]

Hear, hear on the subsidization. In my county, for every dollar spent by a rider, the taxpayer pays two dollars. And it would be worse if we had rail. That's an absurd ratio. If you want to get somewhere, shouldn't you have to pay for it? Sure, public transit is good for the environment, less wear and tear on infrastructure, relieves traffic, etc, but paying TWICE what the rider pays?? No.

You'd see more public support for mass transit if the subsidization rate was under 50%.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Anonymous Coward]

That crazy tax sinkhole is probably taking the folk who serve you coffee and groceries to work. The crazy tax sinkhole subsidizes the rest of your economic activity.

Personally I've never seen a city bus service in Europe or in the United States that isn't competitive against someone traveling alone by car unless you have a cheap, reliable and efficient car (and those three tend not to come together very often).

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Z00L00K]

Not only Atlanta but essentially every major city uses those card systems, and almost everywhere the security is broken.

The only thing that stops it from making the news is that it's silenced - the public transport companies don't want the information to get leaked that they use a broken system.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Z00L00K]

In most of the world the cars and the fuel is taxed enough to not only cover their own costs (roads etc.) but also feed into other parts of the big government sinkhole.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider also that the alternatives to mass transit are privately operated vehicles operating on public infrastructure. Aside from toll roads, the roads network is overwhelmingly usable at no additional cost, without any fare-collection mechanism in place. The system is maintained via taxation, including fuel taxes and vehicle licensing fees.

You cannot analyze the economics of a good without also examining its substitutes.

If mass transit is expensive, in time and in dollars, people will use it less. They may substitute alternative transportation methods, or simply decline to travel at all. This is why many no-additional-cost transit options are often found in heavily commercial areas. Merchants can make more money if shoppers decide to take a free shuttle to their business premises instead of walking back to their car to go home. Or you could consider the terminal trains and moving walkways at airports. The airport provides them at no additional cost to increase the throughput of ticket-buying travelers and reduce pedestrian congestion. Installing a fare collection mechanism, even for $0.01 per trip, would chop an enormous chunk out of the convenience, and undermine the purpose of the infrastructure.

The obvious purpose of per-ride fares is to prioritize useful, commerce-generating trips over what would essentially be purposeless wandering or cruising. I suggest that even if fares are reduced to zero, the time cost of using public transit will be enough to stop people from endlessly consuming transit resources with no purpose.

The use of the word "subsidy" is polarizing. Are public roads subsidized by fuel taxes, or is that just how we pay for them?

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

The biggest problem is that often the subsidization is coming from outside the city itself.

In the US, many cities have their mass transit paid for in part by the federal and state governments. That's my main issue with it.

If people in a city decide to subsidize their buses or trains or subways that is fine. But they should pay for it themselves. People that don't live in the cities shouldn't have to pay for the mass transit in the cities.

And I would agree that goes both ways and that people outside the cities shouldn't be asking people in the cities to pay for things either unless whatever it is benefits the cities in some way.

The issue is that cities themselves are not nearly as efficient and economical and many people think because they're very heavily subsidized.

If you suddenly had all the people in the cities paying rent without rent control... paying for food without food stamps... paying for medicine without free medical care... etc a lot of people couldn't live in the city. And if they couldn't they shouldn't.

And if those people didn't live in the city then a lot of things in the city that depend on access to cheap labor etc wouldn't be viable... it would cause a chain reaction that would cause most cities to shrink in size radically.

And would that be a bad thing? Because the people that don't live in the city now would be living somewhere that they could afford.

Why are we trying to get people to live in cities in a manner that forces those people to live at the mercy of charity?

Who benefits? Not the people being offered the subsidies. They're effectively chained to government policies because they utterly depend upon them.

Not the middle class because they tend to prefer the suburbs as proven by the fact that they move there.

We can either assume its for the rich or no one at all and this is just incompetence.

Pick one. Either way the cities shouldn't be so heavily subsidized. It distorts everything.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Anonymous Coward]

but also feed into other parts of the big government sinkhole.

Wake up sheeple!!!

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[imsabbel]

Thats one of the most moronic statements I have ever seen.

Aside from the whole "its already subsidized" thing, people bought those cards because they were cheaper, not because they were at some magical "correct" price point.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

I'd agree with your point but why do it?

Your argument is that the status quo is only possible because of that subsidization. Consider that the status quo might not be a good thing.

We are always told how efficient cities are as compared to other forms of living but the cities are the only places that actually seem to need high levels of subsidization. If they were so efficient they wouldn't.

Cut the subsidy money off and a lot of people that live in cities won't be able to live there anymore.

They'll have to move to cheaper areas.

And then suddenly all the businesses that depend on the cheaper labor those people provide will either have to raise prices to attract sustainable labor or shut down.

This will cause a feed back loop that will push a lot of extra people out of the city until it reaches equilibrium.

At that level of density, it is unlikely the cities will need the mass transit systems being pushed at this point. People will be able to drive cars again in cities if they so choose. And prices for property and rent which are an ongoing issue in cities should be much more reasonable because demand will be a great deal lower.

You're right that the status quo needs the subsidies... but why should we protect the status quo?

Aspects of what "is" at any given point are going to be bad. You'll have to justify those subsidies on some other grounds besides "we can't do business as usual without them." Addiction to subsidies is not an argument for maintaining them indefinitely.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

Ad hominem is not a counter argument.

As to things benefiting direct users, who gets to decide any of that? Maybe you haven't considered how buying me a yacht would have positive impacts on the local economy?

For one thing it would employ yacht builders. For another it would look really nice and improve property values.

Your silly justifications ignore that its all supposition. You have no empirical basis for anything you're saying. And even if your position did have merit, you have no means of quantifying any of it. For example, that yacht you're buying me would improve the local economy. But would it improve the local economy more then it would hurt government funds or cause other problems? Obviously not.

Which is why not only do you have to show that it actually does provide a benefit but that its benefits outweigh its costs. You have no means of doing that which means you're just guessing.

And your guesses and the government's guesses aren't worth anything more then anyone else's guesses. They're not even educated guesses... they're wild assed assumptions.

Now since you started with an ad hominem I can only assume you're going to double down with more pathetic attempts to win an argument by totally ignoring the argument and simply attacking the person making it... well do your worst. Its utterly intellectually reprehensible and there is no way you could more undermine your own credibility then basing your whole argument on what was known to be a logical fallacy thousands of years ago.

And while you're at it... if you attempt ad verecundiam it won't be any better.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Anonymous Coward]

The "price" of a good in a market is not merely what people want to pay for it. For example, how many people would buy a yacht for 100 dollars?

They'd be idiots.
Buying a yacht is only the starting point.
Dock fees, dry dock fees, storage fees, fuel, maintenance, repairs, taxes.
The rule of thumb is to budget 5%~10% of the purchase price for your yearly expenses.
So for a 10 million dollar yacht, you can expect at least $500,000 in yearly expense.
Just filling up the gas tanks would cost more than some cars.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

Wrong.

Cars actually generate revenue. They're taxed very heavily and generate more revenue from those taxes then is spent on cars. A large portion of the gas tax for example is diverted for buses, bicycle roads, etc.

That only goes one way... car drivers do not benefit from taxes on bicycles or buses because neither of those things generate any net tax revenue.

As to airplanes, they are best subsidized at the rate they are taxed. They have no net drain on the national, state, or city budget. In fact, in many places there is a net profit.

To the contrary of your whole point, it is the "mass transit" programs that are prepetually in the red. The cars and airplanes tend to be well into the black.

here you'll bring up something about the US government bailing out an airline... you could say the same thing about any corporation that has more pull in washington then it deserves. Companies go out of business all the time. The government typically does nothing about it.

But if the corporation has friends in washington they can get a bail out. So you're pointing out that some airlines have such connections? Again... so what... you could say the same thing about any major corporation. Your argument ultimately is more that the US government is somewhat corrupt rather then that airlines are subsidized.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[radarskiy]

You have assumed that any amount of subsidization removes any amount of information from prices but have failed to demonstrate this. If this were true then the system would be no worse off charging no fares whatsoever if the system accepts any subsidy, which is clearly absurd.

Even if your only goal is to maximize fare box recovery, rejecting any social objectives, it is possible for the optimum fare to be less or more than the current fare. Transit costs include fixed capital costs for infrastructure and equipment, operating costs per vehicle run for labor and energy, and variable operating costs per rider. The overall costs vary slowly per marginal rider, so if the demand is elastic with price is it conceivable that by reducing price you can decrease the marginal subsidy by way in increasing the load per vehicle.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[radarskiy]

"shouldn't you have to pay for it?"

Should the mobility of labor be comparable to the mobility of capital for a rational market to form?

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

roads are subsidized by car drivers through gas taxes...

Put a tax on buses that pays for buses and I have no problem with them.

I await your next argument... but kindly don't compare the two unless they're actually comparable.

They're apples and oranges and you know it.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

Which is why the government should also subsidize all those costs for me. Think about how much it would help the economy and improve property values.

In all seriousness, this is the problem with making claims about various public services and projects benefiting the public at large.

You see this all the time with Stadium construction. Every time the sports teams say "hey, you'll improve the local economy, provide lots of jobs, etc etc... just buy us a stadium"...

Do those things happen? Statistically no. Yeah you get some jobs... yeah you get some more traffic in town... but not enough to pay for what the stadium cost. If that sort of thing worked then Cleveland or Detroit could turn themselves into economic power houses by building public works.

You can't. It doesn't work that way. And neither does it work that way with the mass transit.

The whole argument... no offense... is a product of intellectual laziness, ignorance, and the corruption of a few bad people that are wiling to take advantage of it.

Nothing more.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[wisnoskij]

How does that make any sense? I am selling a counterfeit item, of course I am selling it at below retail as there is risk involved for the client, and they must pay with cash as well. That does not mean that the retail price is too high, anymore than someone picking a twenty dollar bill up off the floor has twenty dollars too little in their bank account.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[PopeRatzo]

Cars actually generate revenue. They're taxed very heavily and generate more revenue from those taxes then is spent on cars. A large portion of the gas tax for example is diverted for buses, bicycle roads, etc.

The revenue generated by cars does not make a dent in the external costs of automobile travel.

Everywhere in the US, in every county of every state, automobile travel is subsidized by governments from the town all the way up to the federal gov't.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[BasilBrush]

And that is a major issue in mass transit. Most mass transit systems do NOT break even after collecting all the tickets and passes. Nearly all of them must subsidize their costs with taxes. And some of them even take money from federal and state programs because the systems are not actually affordable even using city taxes without adding money from the federal and state governments.

Countries with good public transport are pleasanter for everone than countries without them.

As such, saying "hey they should just lower prices" is not really rational.

A train or a bus costs about the same per passenger mile whether it is full or empty. The additional fuel for weight is a tiny part of the cost. Thus if the transport service is not running near capacity, it very often DOES make sense to lower ticket prices and get more passengers. Note the success of low-cost airlines vs the traditional airlines.

And if the ticket revenue fell below what it cost to build and maintain the system then it would shut down for lack of funding the same way companies do that can't get enough sales to pay for operations.

A very short sighted viewpoint. First of all most of those people that were on public transport will be forced into private vehicles causing massive congestion. Secondly those who are unable to drive, such as old people, disabled and children become disenfranchised. And that's not good for society either.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[russotto]

We are always told how efficient cities are as compared to other forms of living but the cities are the only places that actually seem to need high levels of subsidization. If they were so efficient they wouldn't.

Haha, you haven't looked at agricultural subsidies lately (or ever), have you?

Mass transit is certainly massively subsidized (often by the same drivers that urbanistas despise so much), but to say that cities are the only places that need subsidization is ridiculous.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[PopeRatzo]

In most of the world the cars and the fuel is taxed enough to not only cover their own costs (roads etc.) but also feed into other parts of the big government sinkhole.

Not even close. Does fuel tax cover the costs of the health problems from pollution? They haven't even touched the costs to society from the decades where gasoline had lead in it and the crime and social problems that caused.

At best, fuel taxes cover the costs of resurfacing a few roads. It doesn't touch new construction of infrastructure.

On the other hand, if you take my town as an example, the mass transit system has allowed many corporations to bring their facilities here because we have an educated workforce who can get to work without having to drive. Not in every location, but in major cities, the subsidies of mass transit pays for themselves many times over.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[BasilBrush]

We are always told how efficient cities are as compared to other forms of living but the cities are the only places that actually seem to need high levels of subsidization.

Typically the reverse is true. Rural areas need more subsidy per capita than cities.

Cut the subsidy money off and a lot of people that live in cities won't be able to live there anymore.
They'll have to move to cheaper areas.

Clearly you haven't considered all the poverty in cities in countries where there is little public subsidy of anything. You never heard of favelas and shanty towns? These are often people that had to move to the city because despite the poor conditions and poor pay there, in the countryside where they came from they would starve.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[BasilBrush]

In most of the world the cars and the fuel is taxed enough to not only cover their own costs (roads etc.) but also feed into other parts of the big government sinkhole.

Not even slightly true. Countries with paved roads are massively subsidising them.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[BasilBrush]

Cars actually generate revenue. They're taxed very heavily and generate more revenue from those taxes then is spent on cars.

A common misconception.

http://usa.streetsblog.org/201...

It's the same the world over. Where roads are paved and maintained, they are heavily subsidized. Rail transport is cheap compared with the subsidies given to private road transport.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[BasilBrush]

Road transport is heavily subsidized. Are you willing to pay taxes that double your costs for driving your car?

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[AK Marc]

Nearly all of them must subsidize their costs with taxes.

And cars are subsidized. You need to even out the subsidizations, and nobody is pushing for making road vehicles pay their actual share.

ZERO subsidization. Then you could charge a market price for those tickets.

Start with killing subsidies for cars. Oh, that's right, you are like the farmers. They vote conservative because they are against welfare, while collecting government money.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

No it has nothing to do with that.

Phones make money by collecting a subscription fee that pays off the cost of the phone over the term of the contract.

Printers make money by charging extra for ink which pay off the cost of the printer of the life of the printer.

Buses collect no such other fees from customers. Rather, they collect the difference from the general tax funds or by in my opinion robbing national and state road funds.

The sorry state of many of our bridges is a direct result of cities draining road funds that are paid for by car drivers through gas taxes. Exactly why should my gas taxes go to pay for a bus? The city buses don't even pay the gas tax. They pay no taxes. They pay for nothing. Not their gas. Not their buses. Not the bus drivers. Its nearly all subsidies and that money often comes from over stressed general funds that are forced to underfund more critical services because of the misappropriation of funds. Or the money comes from specialized funds that only exist to fund things like roads and bridges... but now suddenly can't afford to do that because the f'ing buses took all the money. Which is why perpetually we are being told that we don't have enough money in the road fund. This is incorrect. We have plenty of money in the road fund... for roads... and bridges. What we don't have enough money for in the road fund is enough to pay for the newest mass transit project that some slimy politician got green lit ON TOP of the roads and bridges.

And what do they decide to underfund when that happens? The roads and bridges. Heaven forbid that the stupid buses actually have to pay for anything.

And don't get me wrong. If cities want to subsidize their mass transit, that is fine. Really. Do whatever you want. But fucking pay for it yourselves rather then stealing from national highway funds or state highway funds or county road funds.

If its so fucking efficient then why do they keep needing to take other people's money to make it practical? That's something of a logical inconsistency.

The car drivers are expected to foot the bill while the money they did spend doesn't even go to pay for their services. And when that happens, the same politicians lie to the car drivers and say "oh we just don't have enough money to pay for the roads... you should pay more."... really? Should we pay more? Because since you're already stealing a large portion of the fund for one thing that has nothing to do with driving a car... tell me what else we should be paying with our gas taxes. Possibly education? You think I'm kidding but they've already done that. In California where I live they take a portion of the gas tax and put it towards all sorts of feel good education projects. Which is great... I have nothing against after school programs etc. But don't take it from the fucking gas fund. Bill that to the general fund so the state senate can have a hope in hell of making a sensible budget.

And this is a problem we have with a lot of projects. The accounting is so confused, conflicted, and outright corrupt in many places that its not possible to make a sensible budget. Exactly what would you base it on? The numbers people are telling you about anything are not accurate. The revenue numbers are wrong. The cost numbers are wrong. All the projection costs are wrong.

Look... Doubtless I'm sounding like a raving maniac here... fair point. But ladies and gentleman, I'm not wrong... and this sort of thing if we don't get a handle on it will trend us right into being a Banana Republic... and the weather in most of the US is not pleasant enough to make the US competitive as a banana republic. If the US becomes a banana republic, I'm moving to some place where you can actually grow bananas. At least then I've got the bananas.

In all seriousness... its not sustainable. And things that can't go on forever... don't.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[AK Marc]

And the roads are not paid from gas taxes, but use income tax for most of the construction cost.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

I'd love to see the accounting on that. As it points out, the gas taxes used to pay for it no problem.

What exactly changed? You say we didn't raise our gas taxes but do we pay a proportionally lower tax today or are you saying the cost of maintaining the network has gone up?

And if it has gone up why? Is that due to proportionally more roads today then drivers? While being stuck in traffic it is very hard to argue that the ratio of roads to drivers is more today then it was in the past when the traffic was lighter.

So what else could cause the cost curve to change?

Is concrete and asphalt more expensive?

I have many guesses as to what could be going on here but none of them are going to be particularly flattering to your "we should just give the government more money" thesis.

And its irrelevant anyway... the accounting information either of us would need to make our point is not open to the public. Which means its just my assumptions against yours.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Anonymous Coward]

Your silly justifications ignore that its all supposition. You have no empirical basis for anything you're saying.

As opposed to what you're doing? Reasoning that "You don't have any empirical basis for saying what you do therefore I'm right even though I didn't give empirical evidence either," doesn't even work if there wasn't empirical evidence, since at best both sides would just be talking out of their rear. But there are actually a lot of studies and effort to understand efficiency of such systems and how much government money gains or loses on different projects. Those actually interested in the issues can seek that out easy enough, while people who are just looking for stupid arguments will sit here complaining about the other side lacking empirical evidence while not offering any of their own, regardless of which side of the issue they are on.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

Much has been made of that recently though I question the accuracy of the accounting. I've had too much experience with the convenient accounting of government to trust anything they're saying without auditing it.

We should both be well versed at this point with government officials double or triple counting revenue... citing costs/debt as being assets... throwing out cost and revenue projections that are utterly indefensible and never come close to projections.

I mean really... I'd have to be a moron to take that at face value. And you should know better yourself.

No offense, we'd have to audit that claim to see if it isn't entirely a fiction.

Given the higher cost of living in cities, the fact that everything is more expensive there... and I mean free market things not government services... it is very hard to argue that they are more efficient empirically. If they were, those costs should be lower.

If it were cheaper to deliver me goods in the city then it is in a rural area then why do I pay more in the city? Competition should drive the cost down if they're just profit taking. And the reality as we both know is that they are just passing on the HIGHER cost of delivering those goods to me in the city.

Why would you assume those costs would only apply to the private sector. It doesn't stop there. All the government services have a higher cost in the city.

Take something as basic as law and order. What do you think NYC pays per resident to provide police protection versus either the suburbs or rural areas. They're not comparable. The rural areas cost practically nothing to police. You could have 5 police officers for 10,000 residents in the boonies. If NYC had that ratio then they'd have about 5000 police officers in the whole city.

Yet they have a lot more... it closer to 40,000. Which to put things into perspective would be like that same town of 10,000 people having a police force of 40 police officers instead of 5.

So I'm going to call creative accounting on your whole premise. It doesn't pass the smell test. Please actually think about it rather then just automatically accepting anything a politician tells you to believe... it makes it very hard to respect your opinion when you do that.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[CrimsonAvenger]

In my county, for every dollar spent by a rider, the taxpayer pays two dollars.

Just read an article about a new bus route being added near where my parents live.

It is intended, of course, to allow for commutes into metropolitan area nearby...

So, the article broke down the costs of the system into Federal, State, Local, individual costs. The individual riders of the system were expected to pay ~17% of the cost of the system. The remaining ~83% was covered by taxpayers at various levels.

Even with that level of subsidization, they were expecting an average of only 30 people per day to be using the system....

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Anonymous Coward]

So you acknowledge that mass transit systems run at a loss and are heavily subsidized by tax payers, but you disagree with the ticket price being cheap enough that people actually use it?

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to see the accounting on that. As it points out, the gas taxes used to pay for it no problem.

No they did not. They never have. If you only want to be creative and say "cars and motorcycles and bicycles (because the last are basically free anyway and pay for all their road damage from their sales tax)", then yes, maybe those would cover costs and we'll all be happy. But then you have all the trucks, SUVs, semis and cement trucks and you have a system that does not pay for itself.

Road damage is the fifth power of axle weight. A semi with 10 tons per axle vs. a car with 0.5 ton does 20^5 more damage. And they certainly don't pay 3 million times more in any taxes.

So next time people bitch about bicycles, remember you are bitching about the wrong people. Bicycles *pay for all their road damage* just with sales tax. Trucks, SUVs and semis, hell no. Even fuel taxes and the rest - we all subsidize their damage.

And since you like numbers, 1t car + 2 people car (so about 300kg per wheel) vs. bike 80kg (person+bike) (so 40kg per wheel) you have 7^5 damage difference. That's 17000+x road damage difference. $10 in sales tax on a cheapest bike covers more damage than $170,000+ in all taxes a driver would need to pay (to pay *equivalent* share of road damage!). And I'm comparing light car that does not even cause all these potholes.

Yes, if we all rode light cars and bikes and motorcycles, we would not get many potholes and would not require much maintenance. And all the gas taxes would definitely cover all the road damage.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Anonymous Coward]

Goof try! Somehow buyers invariably claim that reducing prices will increase sellers profits.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[sjames]

The part you left out is the loss of infrastructure because the tax base is gone. Soon the city dies. An infrastructure designed for a high density isn't sustainable at a low density.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Anonymous Coward]

Should the mobility of labor be comparable to the mobility of capital for a rational market to form?

You are making an assumption the market is rational. You are also making an assumption that available means of transportation are also rational. There are plenty of political favors in mass transit:
http://www.charlotteobserver.c...

Better alternatives exist in Charlotte but are severely underfunded. However, if rational markets existed, yes, I'd agree with you.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Actually, I do RTFA]

mass transit is already hugely subsidized...

Not in Atlanta. There are a lot of politicans scared by "OMG black people in suburbs around white women" who have worked damn hard to prevent subsidization. They even passed laws requiring wasting the federal subsidies (the feds pushed back on that somewhat... now only 1/2 of the dollars are wasted).

Recently, votes supporting subsidization of the transit system were lost.

Further, the control is kinda crazy, there are many competing transit options on a county by county basis (keeping in mind that the Atlanta area has like a dozen counties) that interoperate poorly to prevent the mixing of economic strata, and the state control that keeps things from being done well...

. Most mass transit systems do NOT break even after collecting all the tickets and passes... As such, saying "hey they should just lower prices" is not really rational.

It's perfectly rational to subsizide things you want more of. And it's hard to think of a reason to not want more mass transit. Lower traffic, lower pollution, lower road maintance costs, lower accidental deaths, lower DUIs (while maximizing drinking opportunities), lower parking issues (and the corrallary tighter population densities/resturant densities), more freedom for poor people. In fact, it's hard for me to think of a reason it shouldn't be 100% free.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Silly you, that idea would require reading... maybe Adam Smith (who says the same thing) or the studies from Norway that demonstrated the advantage their mobility provided in the late 00's.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[rtb61]

Keep this in mind before going off on a public transit rant and why should your taxes pay for it when you drive. The more people on that public transit then the less people on the road with you in private vehicles and the less crowded your drive. So your paying public transport taxes to have better access to your roads.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[rtb61]

The problem with funding mass transit is that it must be designed for peak flows ie have sufficient capacity to fulfil demand during morning and afternoon rush hour. Outside of rush hour this capacity whilst still available is largely idle and thus losses money even though during peak transit times it generates a profit. So either adjust work start and finish to distribute demand and make public transit more profitable or just learn to suck it up when in a traffic jam as that will be the norm without public transit freeing up roads during peak hour, each passenger is one less car on the road and that is what you are paying for.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[JDG1980]

And that is a major issue in mass transit. Most mass transit systems do NOT break even after collecting all the tickets and passes. Nearly all of them must subsidize their costs with taxes. And some of them even take money from federal and state programs because the systems are not actually affordable even using city taxes without adding money from the federal and state governments.

We generally don't expect roads to pay for themselves, so why should we expect that of mass transit?

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Anonymous Coward]

I have issues with population density being considered a good thing, but that aside...

Free would be nice, but I feel it would be more practical to have it subsidized for the poor. In other words, free bus passes to the poor, or perhaps working poor. At the very least, free bus passes to those below the poverty level, but only if their income is at least $500 per month.

I know that seems counterintuitive, but I said "at the very least", and this would be to provide assistance to those who may need the bus in the course of their work, or to get around without burdening their little income being used for getting a car, tax, etc.

Some places have bus passes as cheap as $250/year. Some places cost $70/month. Lowing the prices would certainly help, but it wouldn't be feasible. So it seems like the only solution is to subsidize bus passes for the poor--make them free for the working poor.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[zippthorne]

I don't think the parent is arguing that taxes shouldn't pay for buses, but rather that the taxes that pay for it shouldn't be the targeted taxes like the gas tax, instead the money to subsidize the buses should come from the general fund, and the subsidy level should be something that people get to have a say in through the election process.

That's something I can get behind, for the simple reason that using the gas tax to subsidize buses is unsustainable: if it's working correctly it encourages drivers to switch to buses, carpool, and use more efficient vehicles (which is, in fact, one of the desired goals - get cars off the streets to reduce traffic and smog), but that means that the burden is now spread over fewer car-miles, so the tax needs to increase, driving more drivers to buses, until everyone is on the buses and where does the money come from again?

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Anonymous Coward]

That would work for movie tickets

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[zippthorne]

I'm not 100% convinced it's the cars that are the problem. Sure, there is extra congestion from more cars and there is obviously a limit as to how many road of given width can support, but there are other users of the roads that I think may be the seeds of traffic: Bulk transport vehicles.

Without their slow acceleration and poor hill performance, the car traffic would be able to move at a fairly constant rate. Instead, whenever one of these vehicles attempts to merge in or climb a hill, its lane becomes obstructed. Drivers naturally attempt to route around the obstruction, spreading velocity differences into the neighboring lanes. Also, the flimsy rag they cover the spoil with is insufficient to prevent a comet tail of paint-scratching debris.

Bulk transport vehicles should not be in high-traffic areas during peak commute times.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Gim Tom]

But are not roads and highways also subsidized with taxes. In fact there is talk now of increasing the tax on gasoline since it is not enough to keep the highway trust fund solvent. I don't know about current subsidies, but when the first railroads were built they were subsidized with large land grants to the companies building them. The notion that "the market" is always right and should decide whether anything is done and what the price for it should be is only true for those areas in which it is applicable. There are many things that can not support a market, that are still desirable for society as a whole. In order for things like roads and highways to exist there must be some form of subsidies. Whether they are direct or in the form of "membership cooperatives" (e.g. Electric Membership Corporations) they would never exist if left to private enterprise alone.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

While the agro subsidies are a point in your favor, I would point out that the cities profit from that by having cheaper food while no one but the cities profits from the mass transit.

Effectively, the cities should recoop the costs. After all the subsidies on agriculture depress prices by increasing supply which means the consumer pays less.

Explain how subsidizing mass transit helps anyone outside the cities?... it doesn't. It should be funded entirely by the cities without tapping into county, state, or federal funding.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

In what way? And what are you suggesting here? That we don't have roads? You want to have little tiny rail road tracks all over the cities down into every cul-de-sac? There is no city on the planet that can survive without its roads... it doesn't matter how much mass transit you've got. You still need roads. So its a zero sum game.

If you're going to build the roads anyway because you can't practically sustain a society without them... why is it so evil to just use them as the primary mode of transportation?

Yes yes... moronically over developed cities where they pack people in like distopian rats are not functional without mass transit... I fail to see how that is an argument in favor of mass transit but rather an argument against packing people in so densely that you're forced to use expensive, limiting, and impersonal transportation methods.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

as to places being more pleasant with such things... fine... give me a yacht... it will be cheaper then a mass transit system and I'll find that a great deal more pleasant.

Give me a yacht now or "I find it more pleasant" is a fucking stupid argument.

as to airlines versus buses... airlines are mostly entirely self sustaining and self funding enterprises with no need for public investment. Everything is paid for by the people that fly airplanes.

Tell you what, you lower the cost of airline tickets by 75 percent eating that cost entirely with taxes that have nothing to do with airlines... say if you diverted a bunch of money from the education fund to pay for my cheaper airline tickets... and you have a comparable situation.

Because in cali we've seen the government direct gas tax money to fund education. Explain that please while our roads are falling apart. Its indefensible and stupid.

Can we please not be a nation of rampant fucktards? I'd feel better about my society if we didn't seem to go out of our way to do things in the most fucking stupid way possible and then stupidly respond "so what" when the obvious stupidity of it is explained.

As to your final point about poorly designed cities being utterly dependent on expensive and restrictive transport systems... I agree... they're dependent on it. Just as a man is depend on an artificial heart after you rip his natural one of his chest.

That must mean artificial hearts are great...

Look, I get your point. However, my counter point is that you're encouraging and enabling foolish city and urban planning by subsidizing transportation methods that are unable to fund themselves on their own merits and instead must have their funding provided in backhanded methods.

If mass transit were really as great as you think it is then people would be happy to pay the cost of running it at the ticket booth.

They're not willing to pay because its not that great. If you actually forced people to pay the cost of it they'd all suddenly realize how fucking awful mass transit is and has been for a long time.

Anything looks good if free or if the costs are hidden. Ask people to pay what it actually costs and very quickly you'll find what people really think of it and if your system is ACTUALLY competitive.

Its this sort of thing that screws up our society. The government comes in picking winners and losers. They decide what is and is not practical by taxing the shit out of things they don't like and subsidizing absurdly things they do like with the net result that things they don't like are STRANGELY unaffordable while things they do like seem like good buys.

Only their choices tend to be so hamfisted and impractical that often things that are taxed to shit are still cheaper or more practical then the things that are subsidized absurdly.

Look... I'd just like to know I live in a society not populated entirely by morons. And if I can't have that, then I want to be left alone.

That's all I want.

Don't be stupid or leave me alone. I think that's reasonable.

If you insist on pursuing foolish wasteful policies and insist on forcing me to pay for them and embrace them and organize my life around them... then I reserve the right to both judge you for that and take all practical actions to frustrate, undermine, derail, and otherwise stop your activities.

I think that's fair. Can't say I'll win but we tend only respect each other as human beings based on what we can do to each other if we don't... and I'm feeling more and more that a lot of people need to experience those consequences good and hard.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[PopeRatzo]

why is it so evil to just use them as the primary mode of transportation?

"Evil"? You're arguing with a ghost now. There's nothing evil about roads or about cars or about mass transit. They are all modes of transport that are built or subsidized by the commons in order to serve people.

Any human institution can only be measured by how well it serves people. You seem angry at mass transit for some reason. Maybe because it doesn't serve you. But that's not the yardstick for decisions made by societies. Not how well it serves you but how well it serves us.

forced to use expensive, limiting, and impersonal transportation methods.

Mass transit, at least in my city, costs less (including "subsidies") per mile traveled than cars. And "impersonal"? Is that the problem here, that you can't hang your fuzzy dice and truck nuts on your friendly neighborhood transit car? Is this about you being behind the wheel of your own personal 3000 lb turbo-charged locomotive, the way God intended?

The good news is that nobody cares what you drive. But communities have to work. And more people in the US now live in cities than in rural areas. This is not because of the gummint, but because that's the way business likes it. Lots of consumers and lots of workers in one place.

But I'm still trying to wrap my head around "impersonal". I can't imagine anything more "impersonal" than the millions of Toyota Camry lookalikes and mommy SUV's clogging up the nation's roadways, each with one person behind the wheel. Each better than a ton of refined oil-burning, hydrocarbon-belching steel and plastic, just so that one person can get the average 6.2 miles that they queue up to crawl each day. I'll have to remember "impersonal". At least my bike has multicolored streamers coming out of the handlebars, and an officially licensed Chicago White Sox banner flying above so one of the Camry clones doesn't run me over because the driver is too busy texting to notice the fool passing them by on the recumbent bike.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

Even if they are it is a zero sum game because you can have a city without mass transit but you can't have a city without roads.

The Romans had roads... I don't think they had mass transit.

So with or without mass transit you're going to have roads.

Roads and cars are also more flexible, offer more direct access, can be used at any time to get nearly anywhere, and the cost of building a road is nothing compared to the cost of building a road/rail AND then sustaining a regular bus/train route on that road.

They're just better for all the reasons peer to peer networking is better then running everything through some massive fucking server farm.

Is the server farm good for providing ONE thing... sorta... its certainly easier to manage. But in terms of raw file transfer bandwidth you can't compete with 100 million people all passing a file to the left or right. No server farm can compete with that. Could all of them do it collectively? Sure... and while I'm not making an argument against server farms, the point is that a decentralized ad hoc transfer system has qualitative and quantitative advantages.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

Cars are not subsidized especially. I don't know what you're talking about.

And regardless... I'd love to see you try and run anything without roads. We can get by without your mass transit projects. We cannot survive without roads. You'd starve in your city like trapped rats.

As to liking farmers and being a conservative... I really find it amusing that people tip their hands so easily. Here you're basically admitting to being a thoughtless political hack that distills all discussions down to some preprocessed political talking point incapable of actually thinking for yourself or processing things individually.

That's really too bad... I wish you were human.. but you're apparently a tape recorder made out of meat... a parrot that someone taught to wear clothes... pick one and have a cracker.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

Why should I pay for your mass transit in your city when I don't even live in your state?

Why is gas tax money diverted to after school programs when we have roads that need repair... and then why does the same government that did that feel it is reasonable to turn around say they need more money for roads after they just emptied the fund to pay for something totally unrelated?

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[AK Marc]

Cars are not subsidized especially. I don't know what you're talking about.

I agree. You don't know anything about the subsidization of cars or mass transit. Though that didn't ever stop you from posting stupid stuff before, so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up now.

And regardless... I'd love to see you try and run anything without roads.

What, like the trails I've ridden bikes on? they seem to work fine. And I've driven on private roads as well. You still don't know what I'm talking about, do you?

As to liking farmers and being a conservative... I really find it amusing that people tip their hands so easily. Here you're basically admitting to being a thoughtless political hack that distills all discussions down to some preprocessed political talking point incapable of actually thinking for yourself or processing things individually.

I admitted that I recognize hypocricy in others. I note you didn't complain about the facts, just an ad hominem because you are, once again 100% wrong, without a clue as to the topic of conversation.

That's really too bad... I wish you were human

Liar. You don't want to "discuss", you just insult everyone else because whenver someone else speaks, it shows you to be stupid.

Cars are massively subsidized. From the fuel to the roads. Fuel taxes pay roughly 0% of interstate roads built cost.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

Not an issue unless you live in an area with unreasonable congestion... and those areas only get that way because of subsidized housing, food, healthcare, transport, etc that make living in unsustainable places marginally affordable.

It would save a lot of money and be much more sustainable if people would just live in places that they could afford without subsidies. Does that mean the mega cities empty? Yep... they're dinosaurs. They're only viable with subsidies and will only survive so long as the money flows.

What happens historically when that money is cut off? The cities empty. Rome had wild goats roaming the streets after the fall of the empire because everyone left what was previously one of the densest population centers in the world. Why? The subsidies ran out. Rome used to have free food and subsidized housing during the Empire... but when that came crashing down the grain ships stopped... and people very quickly dispersed.

Don't get me wrong. There are pros to population density. However, most of them were rendered irrelevant after the invention of the airplane and the internet.

I can be anywhere in the world in a day. One day and I can be anywhere. And with the internet and a little 21st century savvy you can telepresence anywhere on earth in about 5 seconds.

That renders most of the practical benefits of packing that many people into such a small space utterly irrelevant.

That we continue to do this is largely due to logistical momentum. It made sense in the 1960s and so we just keep doing it.

How often when you hear about some public works program do you hear the politicians referencing the 1930s or something? Its retrograde. They're thinking politically... and politics is a poor guide of what is and is not reasonable.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

As to subsidizing things you want more of... then why do you subsidize unemployment?...

just curious if you've thought that one through or if the logical connections are a surprise to you here.

Look.. you want to subsidize stuff?... I don't really care. Just keep the population subsidizing it to the population that actually uses it and keep the accounting honest such that you're not playing an accounting version of "where's the marble"... too much of that is a shell game and I have very little patience for it. So long as the people that benefit are the people that pay and the accounting books properly reflect what things cost and who paid for it... I'm fine with it.

Try to force people that live a thousand miles away to pay for your bus system or play games with the accounting books and I see no reason why I should treat it as anything but graft and fraud.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

You're just saying that your system is inflexible and resistant to adaptation.

I agree... I think my whole thesis here is that its bad. So... I don't see where your point contradicts that.

Remember turbine engined cars? I think Chrysler made some in the 60s or 70s. They were pretty cool. They sounded like vacuum cleaners. They had all sorts of benefits. I think they were more fuel efficient on highways. And they were just a generally interesting piece of technology.

But they died because they had one overriding problem... they were trash at stop and go traffic or surface street traffic. They were great on open highways but they didn't rev up and down easily. They took a couple minutes to rev up to full power and once they got there they had to stay there or you'd lose power.

That's okay for an airplane... but it doesn't work for cars which is why we went back to the internal combustion engine which for all its sins revs up and down very quickly.

What you're saying about the city is that its the jet engine...

Well that's too bad. Painting yourself into a corner is not an argument for staying in the corner forever. By all means, taper the subsidization off over a period of decades so that there isn't chaos and people literally dying due to horrific inefficiency of it all slamming down on people all at once.

I'm not unreasonable. But neither is this an excuse to do business as usual forever.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

Do you know what it would cost to fix a pot hole if you just let people fix it rather then farming it out to the god damn transit unions every single fucking time?

We're talking about splashing some asphalt into a hole every so often. Total cost of that is just north of zero.

We have a mix of private and public roads in California. The private roads are pretty much without exception better cared for... for some reason. While the funding for them is nothing extraordinary.

We even have some private highways. They're toll highways. For 10 dollars you can skip hours of traffic. A lot of people buy passes on those highways and commute on them every day.

Not only does that fee pay for the road's maintenance it also pays for it initial construction.

You want to see which of us is willing and able to pay his fair share? You'll blink first... then choke.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

No captain strawman, I acknowledge that these systems are poorly conceived and outmoded... and disagree with sustaining them indefinitely out of logistical momentum and intellectual laziness.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

I actually do... There are thousands of years of historical record on cities and what happens when the money runs out.

If they were more efficient then everyone in third world countries would live on top of each other in highrises made out of mud.

They don't because it isn't.

I further base my point empirically on the differing costs of living.

If packing people in were more efficient then you'd save money and that money would wind up in the pockets of the people that live in cities.

it doesn't... I can lots of easily obtainable empirical evidence. It requires a bit of inference of course but that is because I don't have legions of statisticians doing my bidding. I have to find correlative data points and cross reference them. Its pretty easy really and I'd love to hear your attempt to discredit it.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

you think you wouldn't be starving to death within a month because you have bike paths?...

yo kay... the trucks that deliver everything that sustains you wouldn't be showing up... you got rid of the roads.

not even your mass transit works without the roads. the roads are fundamental to human travel for the last 5 to 6 thousand years.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

Of course something doesn't need to personally profit me to be worthy of subsidization.

That said, a given community shouldn't be expected to pay for the toys of another community.

If my community wants to buy speed boats and use speed boats to get around... we could dig canals all over town and have free to use speed boats...

Do you think YOUR town or city on the other side of the country should pay for my town's speed boats? Yes or no?

Because you either agree with me or you're buying me speed boats.

Pick one... I'm now bored with you.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[AK Marc]

yo kay... the trucks that deliver everything that sustains you wouldn't be showing up... you got rid of the roads.

Saying that roads are subsidized is calling for a massive destruction of all roads, starting yesterday? I didn't think anyone could be so stupid.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Anonymous Coward]

The price people were willing to purchase the "counterfeit" cards is much closer to what the general public is willing to pay for "legitimate" cards

Not really. People are, in general, simply always looking for a "deal" or a "discount".

Re: The REAL value of the transit system

[mspohr]

Public transit should be free.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[1u3hr]

Mass transit subsidies are more obvious, but private transport is massively subsidised by the government and community. Roads, highways, bridges, tunnels, etc, etc. Hundreds of billions is spent on road infrastructure. (Some overlap here, but the great proportion is used by private cars.)
Hundreds of billions on health costs -- car accidents, air pollution.
Hundreds of billions in wars to secure access to automobile fuel.

If all the costs of private urban road transport were added up, maybe we could see which forms of transport really cost more.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

If you're going to bill the wars to the cars then you're really digging for a point.

I might as well bill race riots and the tendency to spawn plagues on cities.

The wars are no more the result of wars then they were absent before the car existed.

Did we have wars before the automobile? Yes? Then you have no case. Utterly silly.

You think if we go all green suddenly 100 thousand years of hominid rivalry will turn into hands across the world kumbayah nirvana?

I'm sorry... I'm suppressing lots of flames right here... Its hard... you're saying really really stupid things... and I need to remember that you could be hung over or concussed or something... please try harder in the future... or I'll likely have a brain aneurysm from the strain.

Re: The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

I agree... it should be provided by people like you carrying me around in a palanquin while your sister feeds me peeled grapes.

Of course it should be free... everything should be free... food, housing, education, healthcare, clothing, internet access, movies, games, sex change operations, penis enlargements, and why not just speed boats.

I await your sturdy back to carry my ostentatious litter of glory. My feet shall never touch the ground again.

I can't wait.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[1u3hr]

"Did we have wars before the automobile? Yes? Then you have no case. Utterly silly."

I didn't say ALL wars were about oil, FFS.
What did I actually say?

"Hundreds of billions in wars to secure access to automobile fuel."

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

Still irrelevant since we haven't really fought any wars to do that.

Are you one of those people that thinks the only reason we care about the middle east is the oil?

We care about that area mostly because they stand in the middle of asia and are frequently batshit insane.

People often point out that we ignore wars etc in Africa... we can afford to do that because Africa isn't in the middle and as crazy as they might get, they rarely involve the rest of the planet in their nonsense.

Seriously... I don't know where to go with this because I'm pretty sure you're going to try and make some sort of argument to claim a significant amount of the conflict we've had in the last 50 years is about oil when it wasn't. It has more to do with unstable post colonial powers falling apart after the military dictatorships lose their funding from various foreign patrons.

Regardless, a central point that you're really not dealing with is this... you can't get rid of the cars.

What is the alternative? Horses? You think you can have trains going everywhere? Or do you think we can do electric cars?

And regardless, the US has been able all along to self produce all the oil it needs. So if you're really so upset about international oil market mattering to US geo politics, then kindly make a point of not interfering with domestic exploitation of oil resources. I rather suspect you're not a fan of that industry and that's unfortunate because interfering with it disrupts supply which forces people to buy the oil where ever it can be found... including unsavory places with bad people.

The oil will flow.

And really, if you're going to start blaming the automobile for every bad thing that's happened in the 20th and early 21st century, then you're going to have to give it credit for the good things as well... at which point you'll be in the uncomfortable position of thanking the automobile for making the world a better place.

Re: The REAL value of the transit system

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly, you have never been to Asia.

Re: The REAL value of the transit system

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again, clearly you have never been to Asia. Your views are skewed by living in an extreme outlier in terms of population density in the world.

But yes, lets cut all the rural subsidies. Telephone/internet/electricity will take in concideration the actual cost of lines per person. All roads will be toll road roads. No subsidies for that rural highway used by 100 people per day.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if where I live qualifies as the boonies but it's a town of 13,000 people certainly with much lower density than New York and we do have 42 police personnel (32 officers)... But you make an interesting point about why goods would cost more in the city if it were easier to get them there, I always figured it was just because people make more money there and they can get away with charging more. The data for my city: Auburndale

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[KingOfBLASH]

There is an interesting question of economics as to what is the true price of something. For instance, when a coal fired plant charges $x for electricity, it also causes health problems for the residents down wind, increases CO2 levels, and a spate of other issues. So the real "price" is paid not by the people burning the coal for electricity, but by society.

It's the same thing for cars. Cars pollute and enough cars can make a city's air unbreathable. They also can create quality of life issues. Which would you rather live in? An area with jam packed highways where you can't walk anywhere or somewhere walkable with nature. Mass transit also works most efficiently when it is used by the most people.

So in this case, it makes sense to say cars should reflect the actual cost to society, and to encourage mass transit use.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[1u3hr]

"And really, if you're going to start blaming the automobile for every bad thing that's happened in the 20th" Fuck off with your straw man arguments.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Anonymous Coward]

Explain how subsidizing mass transit helps anyone outside the cities?... it doesn't. It should be funded entirely by the cities without tapping into county, state, or federal funding.

If the city is a nicer place to live with all the reliable public transport, more people will choose to live there. It will be much cheaper to provide services to them. Shops,water,power,roads,hospitals,schools,etc,etc.
Taxes are now lower for everyone, including the people outside the city. Less demand for land outside the cities makes it cheaper for the people who choose to stay. You want to live away from other people, ie not in a city, so now it's easier and cheaper and you have less people to bother you.
The less people who want to live in the middle of nowhere the better for everyone in infrastructure and efficiency and cost.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Anonymous Coward]

If my community wants to buy speed boats and use speed boats to get around... we could dig canals all over town and have free to use speed boats...

If you were retarded maybe, proper civilised people would just build some mass transit. It's win, win,win.
It's cheaper.
It improves the lives of people in the cities.
It makes idiots like you foam at the mouth with rage.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't because it isn't. I further base my point empirically on the differing costs of living. If packing people in were more efficient then you'd save money and that money would wind up in the pockets of the people that live in cities.

Have you ever been to a city? It's exactly the opposite of what you say.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Anonymous Coward]

What? An internet know it all turns out to be nothing more than a sanctimonious no-it-all? What a surprise!

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[BasilBrush]

Do you know what it would cost to fix a pot hole if you just let people fix it rather then farming it out to the god damn transit unions every single fucking time?

We're talking about splashing some asphalt into a hole every so often. Total cost of that is just north of zero.

You're living in cloud cuckoo land. First of all no one would do it. Secondly if they did, they would last a matter of weeks. Thirdly, there would be a death toll related to people with shovels being hit by rapidly moving vehicles.

Toll roads are unscalable. They work for major highways where the traffic is large. And private non toll roads only work for very lightly used roads and dirt tracks. They can't work for the majority of roads.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[BasilBrush]

Much has been made of that recently though I question the accuracy of the accounting. I've had too much experience with the convenient accounting of government to trust anything they're saying without auditing it.

I'm afraid you're suffering confirmation bias. When you thought the numbers were on your side, you didn't dispute them. Now they are contrary to what you believe, you assume the figures must be wrong rather than your beliefs.

Personally I'm not disputing the figures because it's the same story the world over.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[BasilBrush]

airlines are mostly entirely self sustaining and self funding enterprises with no need for public investment.

Also not true. International air travel enjoys massive tax breaks on fuel. Which is a subsidy of that form of travel over all others. And airports are often built with public money.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Anonymous Coward]

Karmashock,
You keep totally ignoring all of the ways in which private automobile transportation is subsidized by tax-payer money. The most obvious, since you are in California, is the cost of an entire branch of police, the CHP, who would not exist except for the existence of private automobile transportation on the highways. The cost of this police force is easily in the billions of dollars per year, paid for by the California taxpayers. Why aren't you railing about that? Oh, yeah, I forgot. It doesn't count as a "tax" because that would go against your argument that cars equal freedom and anything mass-transit is anti-freedom, corruption, etc. Also, California wouldn't have to shuffle money around if we didn't have such utter stupidity like Proposition 13 which has frozen property taxes for CORPORATIONS since 197. If we abolished this one stupid policy, California would not have any problem paying for schools, etc., and wouldn't have to raid your "precious" gas taxes that you erroneously think would completely pay for all highway and car-related expenses in perpetuity.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[sudon't]

"If its so fucking efficient then why do they keep needing to take other people's money to make it practical?"

It's because too many lazy assholes won't get out of their cars and take the bus. And yeah, government funds are inevitably mismanaged. The truth is, most government funds are intermingled, whatever their intended use was. That's why Social Security is "broke." They spent the money on other shit.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Anonymous Coward]

A yacht builder who survives in business does not crank out 10,000 of his million dollar yachts hoping for a buyer at $500 when most would pay $100. They make one or two for $25 million for those who can afford them. Also, he does not seek the government to force taxpayers to subsidize his $500 customers. Governments are beyond stupid.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Actually, I do RTFA]

then why do you subsidize unemployment?.

Well, that's a completely unsubstantiated statement, except for the "Emperor's New Clothes" statement that smart enough people will see it as self-evident.

Just keep the population subsidizing it to the population that actually uses it

There's no reason why that would be necessary at all. You just seem to be shifting from a subsidy, to forced government accounting/purchases. Whats the difference between someone a thousand miles away and someone who never uses transit?

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Anonymous Coward]

So why do people live in cities?
They haven't heard your one true way of country living?
Why are they richer, even though some things are more expensive?
You're still a stubborn fool, who has never visited a city, only saw one on his (slow) Internet.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[dave420]

You seem to be confusing "everyone" with "you", which isn't surprising as you are clearly a selfish bastard.

Re: The REAL value of the transit system

[retchdog]

Because with few exceptions, Asia is a miserable shithole.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[OwnedByTwoCats]

Roadways are also hugely subsidized. Fuel taxes and tolls only pay about a quarter of the cost of driving. Roads never break even. All of them subsidize their costs with taxes. Many of them even take money from federal and state programs because communities cannot afford to build them without money from the federal and state governments.

Why do you insist that mass transit not be subsidized while roadways are?

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[dublin]

Sorry, they are rarely if ever a public good - building roads is almost always far better and more efficient than another multibillion dollar mass transit boondoggle.

The only thing mass transit (especially "urban rail") excels at is creating the perfect environment for increasingly large-scale graft and corruption.

Although there may be one somewhere, I'm not aware of any mass transit system that breaks even on fares, nor am I aware of one whose cost even had the same number of zeroes promised when hoodwinking the voters into paying for it - Cost overruns of 10-100X are *ordinary* for mass transit projects, with powered train cars now costing more than F-16s!

Since mass transit systems never wind up being able to pay for themselves, mass transit is really just a taxpayer-funded subsidy for those who benefit from ridiculously dense, family-hostile, and outrageously expensive real estate and development.

Mass transit is one of the very best reasons to hate what most large cities have become. The cities without much in the way of mass transit are inevitably safer and more livable, and have much more positive and healthier mental attitudes. And yes, this is one of the few things that can destroy the dynamism even of cities like Austin...

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[dublin]

Here in Austin, bicycle travel is subsidized to ridiculous degrees - new bicycle lanes are reducing 4-lane roads to two-lane all over town in a blatant and brazen attempt to botch traffic so badly that voters will finally approve the light rail boondoggle the city council has been drooling over for decades.

The ONLY thing mass transit does well is offer exceptional opportunities for graft, cronyism, and corruption.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[PopeRatzo]

Here in Austin, bicycle travel is subsidized to ridiculous degrees

By the federal government?

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

I love how people that want other people's money seem to think they can call people selfish for protesting the action.

Why aren't YOU selfish for taking my money? Why am I selfish for wanting to keep it?

You have a logical problem here... what is your definition of selfish? How do you determine if one person or the other is selfish?

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

Wrong. If we got rid of our cars you'd be fucked.

Even the people that use a lot of mass transit also use taxi cabs. This is especially true in towns where people don't own cars. They literally hire people to drive them around when the mass transit fails to deliver.

Precisely what is the difference between a taxi cab driving me around and me just driving myself around?

Want to claim the taxi is more environmentally friendly? It isn't.

Mass transit only works when people live and work in very predictable concentrations. As we move away from the factory model where thousands of people live in area 1A and commute to factory 2B the whole model of transport becomes less efficient because people are coming from more diverse locations and going to more diverse locations.

The cost of transport is rarely calculated on a personal level but is instead calculated at the train or bus. This ignores that a price is paid before you get to the bus and AFTER you leave it because the bus did not pick you up at your front door or drop you off at your destination.

One must walk often for blocks to make up the difference in very dense cities and in less dense cities you might have to walk miles.

Furthermore, its less useful because you can't carry cargo... I gave the example of going to a family party and bringing food. Try to do that on a bus. It doesn't work. You might be able to bring a little but I filled my trunk with stuff.

Cars are great. Mass transit only makes sense when the logistics of a given area become so impractical that even bad ideas start to become viable so long as they work at all.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

You've convinced me... we should ban all cars, trucks, and replace all roads with trains...

I'll be over here laughing as you starve to death.

The cars are required. They're not debatable. You don't have cars and trucks and modern transport simply doesn't work.

Mass transit is itself only needed in very dense areas where cars become impractical due to simply packing too many people into too tight a space... and then subsidizing the error by providing free housing, free food, free medical care, etc to make an otherwise inefficient system affordable on a personal level.

Don't get me wrong. There are pros to packing people in that tightly and they did at one point outweigh the cons. However, I dont' think you can make that argument any longer. I can be anywhere in the world in a day or telecommute anywhere in about 5 seconds. Why do we need to pack people in that tightly when we have that capability? What pros outweigh these cons?

you can't claim its money... the cities are more expensive... so what is the reason?

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

Not at all, there are lots of small construction companies around town that have the skills and equipment to fill in a pot hole. Flag potholes on a map on a website and then offer licensed and bonded contractors the ability to do the job for a standard rate.

Those same licensed and bonded contractors will then arrive on site to fix the potholes and when they collect their fee from the city they will be on record as the company responsible for that fix.

Should a given company be shown to have poor quality or use substandard materials then they would be fined for the incident... since they're insured collecting the money should be no problem.

There is nothing cookoo about it beyond the fact that people like yourself are so narrow minded that it will never seriously be considered. That however is not my fault. That is a limitation of the culture and times in which I live. I hope future generations can enjoy a more mentally flexible society.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

No where are taxes higher then in the cities... I feel like I'm having this discussion with a collection of halfwits...

I wish I could say no offense but that's obviously impossible... you're saying unbelievably stupid things and its just not excusable.

If cities were more efficient then when times get tough everyone would move to the cities.

They don't. When times get tough they move to the country.

Great Depression? People were not flocking to New York city. They were going to California and various other places not blighted by the economic problem.

Look at what happened in greece recently... the greek economy fell apart and people started leaving the city and going back to the countryside.

Why? Because there were some jobs out there and you could live on very little.

In the city you could only live there so long as the subsidies lasted. That was the problem in Greece... the government went bankrupt and the subsidies stopped... and that meant people started leaving Athens.

It is the subsidies that keep the cities viable. Cut them off and you'll see exactly how inefficient they've always been.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

That's fine, but you're not addressing the cost of anything on the other side.

You're also not addressing the cost of not burning that coal.

Lets say the coal plant doesn't burn the coal... and as a result the power it would produce isn't created.

That means street lights might not be viable in some areas. It means some homes might not be able to have electricity. It means all sorts of machinery and electronics wouldn't be able to get power.

And you'd have to account for the cost of all those things not happening and weigh that against the possibility of someone getting a respiratory issue or global warming.

A similar calculation can be made with the US of DDT against mosquitoes.

On the one hand you have the fact that it causes birds to have thin egg shells that might cause some species to go extinct.

On the other hand you have the fact that it kills mosquitoes that spread deadly diseases that kill millions of people.

If you had to chose between the two... which would you choose?

We already made this choice. We chose to kill the mosquitoes.

We did not stop using DDT until we had practical alternatives.

If we had to choose between millions of OUR people dying and a few species of birds... we'd kill the birds every time. No contest.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

From the page you just cited:

Full-time law enforcement employees in 2012, including police officers: 42 (34 officers).
Officers per 1,000 residents here:

2.45
Florida average:

2.45

... So if there are 2.25 officers per 1000 residents then (42/2.25)*1000=population... or 18,777

18,777/10,000=180% of the population figure I cited before as a reference.

So to compare your town with my example... (10,000/18777) * 42 = 22 police officers if your population were 10,000 assuming your local ratio.

Population of NYC 8.34 million. Size of their police force... about 35 thousand.

Assuming a ratio of 2.25 police officers per 1000 residents which is your town's ratio and apparently the ratio in florida... there would be only 18765 police officers in NYC at that ratio.

There are 35 thousand.

35,000/18765=187% as many officers per person in NYC.

Go over the math... any way you cut it. Cities are less efficient.

They have to make up for that inefficiency somewhere or they're not viable.

It is my argument that their best reason for existing was commute times and easy access to labor/employment.

I argue further that in the 21st century with transcontinental air travel and telecommuting this is probably less useful then it was in the past. After all, people can collaborate in real time from the other side of the world. And they can knock on your door in about 16-18 hours from anywhere on earth.

So... that "pro" in the pro/con chart is weaker then it was in the past.

I have just established that there are a lot of cons. Higher logistical costs. Higher property costs. Higher crime rate...

Now you say "some people like to live in cities"... fine. But then why are we subsidizing them? Let people that want to live in them pay for them. Ideally make each city individually pay for its own subsidies. if the city is so great then it should be fine. If its actually only sustained by those subsidies then it will go into decline and lose population until it reaches equilibrium.

At which point, you might be able to just drive where ever you want in town.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[BasilBrush]

Not at all, there are lots of small construction companies around town that have the skills and equipment to fill in a pot hole.

Outsourcing to private firms is already a pretty standard practice. What you're advocating happens now. Only clearly the cost then is not the "Total cost of that is just north of zero." that you were after.

There is nothing cookoo about it beyond the fact that people like yourself are so narrow minded that it will never seriously be considered.

WTF? You suggest people doing it for free, then when called on it you describe a situation of private sector outsourcing that costs similar to what it costs now - because it is what's done now in many places. You are cuckoo.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

The cost would be a tiny fraction of what it is now.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[BasilBrush]

Same people doing exactly the same thing. It will cost exactly the same.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

You're right, private construction firms cost exactly the same as public construction firms...

Oh wait, no they don't.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[BasilBrush]

There is no difference. Especially when the public construction firms are private construction firms because of outsourcing.

I'm afraid you are a typical unthinking tea-partier. You have no reasons for what you say, only assertions. "Private good - Gubmint bad. Ug. Ug."

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

your pathetic attempt to use ad hominem doesn't strengthen your argument but merely label yourself as bigot.

In my city they don't outsource road work. I've never seen that done actually anywhere in my state. In fact, they've gone to great pains to protect the state and city transit unions.

But none of that matters to you. You're a bigot... and bigots just like to hate.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[BasilBrush]

No, a bigot judges based on prejudice. I gave you plenty of time to talk sense before coming to the conclusion that you are a cuckoo tea-partier.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[Karmashock]

No you didn't. And your insistence on using ad hominem and pejorative really just renders your whole position a laughable joke.

You're a bigot. You've confessed it.

And like so many bigots you're unable to see it. Ask a white supremacist to justify his position and he'll "think" he's doing it. He'll give reasons... and then end his absurd argument with why one race is inferior to another or why his race shouldn't mix with another group of people based solely on their skin color.

He'll likely follow the whole thing up with some ugly pejorative or ad hominem like you keep doing.

And if you point out the above to him he'll say that you just don't understand his bigoted thought structure and its your fault for not grasping it.

Typical of bigots.

Now, if you'd like to have a discussion like an adult rather then a temper tantruming child... we can continue. But further attempts to use your bigotry to secure points will only be labeled as bigotry and rejected with justification.

Your choice. Regardless... should you run away from this discussion as I assume you will... most bigots are intellectual cowards that are terrified of having their illogical and hateful world view proven to be illogical and hateful. So I expect you to run away in a pathetic attempt to protect your own ego.

But should you be willing to test your thoughts against mine... I stand ready.

Attempt to defend your position or run away. The choice is yours.

Re:The REAL value of the transit system

[BasilBrush]

If you think I run away from arguments, you haven't come across me before. There will be no attempt to defend my position though. I'll tell you exactly what is what, no attempting required.

You're a bigot. You've confessed it.

No, I explained why I wasn't. The fact that I took time to assess you individually, before describing what you are. Which is not what bigots do.

Now you are calling me names - "bigot", and "temper tantruming child". So by your own logic all this would apply to you too.

Low-hanging fruit

[Sneftel]

The indictment claims that the ring called their organization the "Underground Railroad."

Srsly, guys, try harder.

Re:Low-hanging fruit

[DarkOx]

Why seems like a perfectly reasonable name to me, given what the group does and where they operate.

I am not an expert by any means but my understanding of the last organization to use that name is they rarely if ever put someone on a train or other railway conveyance at all let alone one that went underground. If anything they should have called themselves "The Discrete Walk North". Which I admit does not have the same ring to it, but is at least better in terms of descriptiveness. I guess it just shows you how this country really always been about marketing.

Re:Low-hanging fruit

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not an expert by any means but my understanding of the last organization to use that name is they rarely if ever put someone on a train or other railway conveyance at all let alone one that went underground. If anything they should have called themselves "The Discrete Walk North".

I guess it was a discrete walk, if you really want to think about it that way. However, I believe it is most often associated with being discreet, i.e. discretion.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

re: subsizied mass transit

[King_TJ]

Yes, you're correct .... but I'd maintain that in most (all?) cases, at least in the USA, they've been doing it wrong.

For example, do you know what the salary is for a DC metro subway driver? I had no clue until I saw a job posting on one of the govt. job boards. It's in the 6 figures. I'd sure like to know why a $100,000/yr. plus salary is necessary to get someone to operate a metrorail train!

When you look at what each individual spends to use a personal motor vehicle to commute to/from work each day, it simply doesn't make logical sense that a mass transit system can't beat those operating costs per-person, by sheer volume. And yet, it generally costs me almost the same price to drive from point A to B as to take the metro between those same places. And STILL they say it needs subsidizing with large tax collections?

No ... reality is, mass transit is a big cash cow for a lot of folks on the inside. Every time the system is expanded, contractors are making big bucks on the project.... Unionized maintenance staff probably costs more than is really necessary to keep it all running too. Who knows where else money is being spent inefficiently on the whole thing -- but there sure are plenty of opportunities for it.

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Why're you running from answering 2 simple questions, troll? http://linux.slashdot.org/comm...

PopeRatzo - are you an English professor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or were you? You write like a retarded imbecile yet claim to be some famous writer -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and it's obvious you used the old trick "professors" use and self-published yourself, IF that was even the truth. Answer the question, asshole.

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Why're you running from answering 2 simple questions, troll? http://linux.slashdot.org/comm...

Tell us how you're an English professor

[Anonymous Coward]

That's internationally published after you've been shown to write like a retarded imbecile http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re: subsizied mass transit

[BasilBrush]

For example, do you know what the salary is for a DC metro subway driver? I had no clue until I saw a job posting on one of the govt. job boards. It's in the 6 figures. I'd sure like to know why a $100,000/yr. plus salary is necessary to get someone to operate a metrorail train!

False. Their salary is not in 6 figures. The only way they are going to get into six figures is to do a lot of overtime.

http://greatergreaterwashingto...

Winnipeg Transit's new transfer tickets...

[Anonymous Coward]

They are a simple QR code with route, date and time information embedded. Print your own on a thermal printer and enjoy free rides.

I wish this was possible in Melbourne

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd fuck those Myki assholes over in a goddamn heartbeat if I could, the whole thing is a fiasco.

Re: subsizied mass transit

[Karmashock]

In regards to "it would only work if people did it right"... they say that about everything.

Seriously... how many things would work if people just did them right.

Communism? Everything owned by the state or some benevolent cooperative where everyone shares and shares alike like the animals in the Lion King... Circle of life and kumbayah?

Radical libertarianism? Everything held in private hands but arbitrated via enlightened self interest through competitive and open contract law allowing everyone to get what they need in a classless meritocracy?

In practice neither of these systems work because a certain percentage of the human population is composed of assholes. So you have to build the system to take the assholes into consideration or they'll just shit all over everything.

Ignore the assholes and all the sticky complex variables and nearly any "theoretical" system works.

In theory lots of things work. In practice you have to deal with "reality"... and in reality the theory has to take into consideration a much more complex and intractable set of givens that render many theoretically viable systems utterly unsustainable.

But for the sake of argument, lets say it was done correctly... it won't be... but lets say it would.

I would argue that while sure yes a train might be more efficient at going from known point A to known point B... but that is not actually what people need.

We don't all live or work at known point A or B. We live and work NEAR those places but not at them. Which means even if done correctly, the commuters bear an unrecorded burden to handle a portion of the commute on their own often by walking or biking or switching to multiple mass transit systems... to get from UNKNOWN point X to UNKNOWN point Y. So sure, you can go from point A to B. But that isn't what people are doing. Most people do not work or live in the bus/subway station.

The car takes you from a completely dynamic unknown point X to Y. What is more, the mass transit systems do not operate on YOUR schedule but rather theirs. Which means if you need to get across town at 2AM you might just be shit out of luck. I don't have this problem with my car. I had an IT emergency that i had to run off to at a company at 2AM on the other side of town.

Can we agree that mass transit would not serve my needs in that situation?

I can go anywhere I want whenever I want... directly. No detours. No stop offs to pick up people. I go where I want when I want.

Put a price on that.

Or more importantly put a price on not being able to do that. Because you pay that price when you use mass transit. You surrender a lot of your freedom to choose when and how you get places.

Don't get me wrong, mass transit is very handy in crowded cities. However, I would argue its really only useful in those cities and BECAUSE what you're ultimately dealing with is inefficiencies introduced by packing people in with such density that you've made it impractical for people to own and operate personal transport.

And obviously lets make sure to add the issue of storage/carrying capacity. For example, I recently visited some family about 50 miles from where I live. Could I have gotten there by mass transport? Absolutely. I could take a bus to the train station, then take the train, then switch to another bus, then walk a couple miles. It would have only taken about 4 to 5 times longer. Small price to pay for the warm glow of being a good soylent green cultist.

And not only that but I wouldn't have been able to bring the beer, the appetizers, and the cake that I brought to that party.

And that's not something unique to the few family get togethers I have throughout the year. I am constantly bringing things to places. To work, to home, to friend's places... things that do not easily carry under your arm.

Hell, the weekly grocery shopping trip would be utterly obnoxious if I had to use a subway or bus. I pack my car with loads of stuff. I think I bought 10 2 liter bottles of

The REAL value of the transit system

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Atlanta should try to learn from this situation.

The goal of MARTA is not to facilitate ridership. Its goal is to meet the minimum requirements for federal subsidies while maintaining Atlanta's existing racial segregation lines.

Free public transit

[penguinoid]

As I understand it, taxpayers are already paying the majority of the costs for public transit. Why not just make the fare free, and save on collection costs as well? If more people use it, perhaps the price taxpayers pay per passenger will be lower. Bonus: less petroleum bought from countries that hate us, less congestion, more parking.

MARTA

[Anonymous Coward]

Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta

Slashdot is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

June 28th 2014, It's true, Slashdot is dead.

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Why're you running from answering 2 simple questions, troll? http://linux.slashdot.org/comm...

Tell us how you're an English professor

[Anonymous Coward]

Allegedly internationally published (self published I bet) if you write like a retarded imbecile http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Why're you running from answering 2 simple questions, troll? http://linux.slashdot.org/comm...

Tell us how you're an English professor

[Anonymous Coward]

That's allegedly published (bullshit - self published) if you write like a retarded imbecile http://slashdot.org/comments.p...