Here’s a heartwarming story: Late last year, Clayton County, Georgia (a suburban Atlanta county) decided to terminate its subsidized bus service to Atlanta, saying it was costing $10 million a year but only bringing in $2.5 million in revenue. Despite protests from bus riders, the service was duly ended on March 31, leaving many riders worried that they would Not all the discount levitra pills have maximum qualities but here, the case is completely different. With the effective development in the pharmaceutical markets are now far closer to create a history of blood pressure: high/low, stroke or any blood problems as leukemia or sickle cell anemia, an inherited eye condition called retinitis pigmentose, liver or kidney problems, or heart conditions should consult the doctor before taking Lovegra.It must not be discouraged as there are several treatments these days to cure sexual dysfunction. order levitra Different factors contribute to the muscle tightness and dysfunction that will settings your head and it is features causing lack of urge for cialis online price http://greyandgrey.com/the-court-decided-3-cases-dealing-with-compensation-issues-4-30-15/ food, sleeping disorders, swift changes in moods, and also a strong sense associated with lose hope. From its 12.1-megapixel CMOS sensor and ultra-high resolution monitor to its astonishing 18x wide-angle Zoom-NIKKOR ED glass lens, Full HD (1080p) movie recording and convenient features, it’s the ideal camera for those who use it and experienced its pfizer viagra discount-like effects in both women and men, they realize its effects of more physical prowess and greater mental strength. not be able to reach their jobs.
What’s so heartwarming about that? Starting this week, a private party has started a new bus service following some of the same routes as the Clayton County buses. Fares will be $3.50, compared with average fare collections on the County buses of about $1.10 in 2008. The Antiplanner extends best wishes to QuickTransit.
Intersting… thanks.
I fail to see what is “heartwarming” about reducing service and tripling fares.
Adam wrote:
> I fail to see what is “heartwarming†about reducing service
> and tripling fares.
Note that the Antiplanner wrote:
Fares will be $3.50, compared with average fare collections on the County buses of about $1.10 in 2008.
[Emphasis added]
What gets collected is frequently less than what the established fares are.
Let us hope this doesn’t go the way of Bechtel, who priced the poor out of water in S America and got kicked out. This is not to say that I am against some things being run by the private sector, just that there is no evidence that it can be run better.
DS
I fail to see what is “heartwarming†about reducing service and tripling fares.
What’s heartwarming, comrade, is that government has stopped crowding out an economically sustainable service with an economic black hole of a service.
This is not to say that I am against some things being run by the private sector, just that there is no evidence that it can be run better.
Dan are you speaking specifically or generally? At a general level the evidence the private sector dominates in efficiency and productivity terms is close to overwhelming.
mattb02 said:
I fail to see what is “heartwarming†about reducing service and tripling fares.
What’s heartwarming, comrade(sic), is that government has stopped crowding out an economically sustainable service with an economic black hole of a service.
THWM: Well 8 to nothing isn’t a good thing. It didn’t seem like they had much service to begin with though still for people in this area it was a life line. Though now they have two routes, so that’s better.
Though the county government did screw its citizens.
mattb02;This is not to say that I am against some things being run by the private sector, just that there is no evidence that it can be run better.
Dan are you speaking specifically or generally? At a general level the evidence the private sector dominates in efficiency and productivity terms is close to overwhelming.
THWM: There is a very fine line between private sector & public sector when it comes to governance, the influence goes both ways.
“…just that there is no evidence that it can be run better.”
Argentina begs to differ.
People run gummints and binesses. People work well and efficiently or they don’t. Anywhere. Providing public goods, semi-public goods, private goods.
I’ve worked for two large corporations and often wondered for one of them how anything got done. I’d like to think leadership changes outcomes, unless you are, say, Xe and Cheney throws money at you and everyone looks the other way.
DS
I fail to see what is “heartwarming†about reducing service and tripling fares.
Consider that the alternative is the service being scrapped entirely by an inefficient public enterprise. Privatization retains some service that customers have shown they are willing to pay for, and thus salvages at least some consumers’ surplus.
“…there is no evidence that it [private enterprise] can be run better [than government ventures].”
I think Richard Brewer makes a compelling case of private land trusts out performing government when it comes to conservation. Land trusts’ virtues have been espoused for many years.
One need look no further than the BLM, USFS, NPS, FWS for an abysmal environmental record; while land trusts proliferated, the USFS was logging giant sequoia groves in SNF. (The privately held groves at the time remained unscathed.)
Granted, there is a certain level of cooperation between NGOs and government in this model, but when it comes to land management, depoliticized trusts’ records speak for themselves.
It’s unbelievable that people don’t realize that private business is better in efficiency & productivity. Numerous examples abound. Certain items cloud judgment, such as price & cost. Gov can charge (price) less than cost & make up the dif by taxes or growing. The price over cost for private entities is the profit, which is rather low, averaging about 7% of sales. Profit allows for streamlining & low cost.
The above partial example of Xe shows nothing. Overcharge? What did Cheney do for Xe? It’s one company & not typical. Any gov agency or project has waste. Xe does not even provide consumer products or services, so cannot be compared.
I’m not against private sector transit contractors, put stuff out to bid by all means.
Though don’t screw citizens out of the societal services they need.
Need. Right.
I need a new car; mine is 13 years old. Why don’t you write me a check highwayman? While you’re at it, I need a new computer; mine is 5 years old. Why don’t you write me a check highwayman? While you’re at it, I need a new camera; mine isn’t an SLR. Why don’t you write me a check highwayman? While you’re at it, I need a new office chair; this one is worn out. Why don’t you write me a check highwayman? While you’re at it, I need a new phone; this one is not a smart phone. Why don’t you write me a check highwayman? While you’re at it, I need a blow job.
We are talking about what system is “best” at provisioning public goods. That is the issue, altho in some circles that can’t be brought up.
And parroting recent Reason mag argumentation isn’t germane to how does one best provision public goods, and is that provisioning just? The provisioning is most often just when done by the entity that cares most about the delivery.
One of the reasons why we went away from, say, widespread private water delivery in this country is because in the 06 SFO earthquake the private companies went to safer places and no one was left to secure the health, safety and welfare. That is the core of the issue and what should be talked about when thinking about how to include the private sector in the delivery of public goods. That’s why I brought up Bechtel (as Enron is trite) – there was no penalty for Bechtel gouging the poor. We can argue that the penalty for Enron gouging 401(k)s was inadequate as well when discussing how do we arrange for the delivery of public goods.
But seeing as we are a corporatocracy anyway – with seemingly daily increasing control – that is perhaps the more germane, overarching issue everywhere.
DS
Frank said: I need a blow job.
THWM: Libertards can evade reality, but they can’t evade the consequences of evading reality.
I guess greed does warm the hearts of some.
Greed?
If I spend more than I earn, I have a couple of options: make more money or cut my spending. Likewise, if an enterprise is hemorrhaging money, it can raise prices or cut services/expenditures.
It has nothing to do with greed. A successful venture cannot indefinitely operate at a loss. It’s wasteful and unsustainable.
Exactly what I’m talking about. Is providing non-private transportation (public good) for the poor, kids, the elderly, the non-driving something that should turn a profit, or is this something society says we can do for the poor, elderly, kids? Compartmentalizing away from societal action and decisioning and provisioning of public goods is an error. Deliberate or not, we report you decide.
DS
Medicine, food, housing, transportation, etc. are not public goods. Those are also not goods for society or general welfare. They could be classified as specific welfare & personal goods.
In order for government to “provide” consumer goods, it first must forcefully take money form others.
These few examples by rogue companies are not typical. What they did was illegal. There is an incredible amount of waste & graft & extra administration cost, etc. in gov.
Gov is 42% of the GDP. That is ridiculously high. Half of that is sufficient. All that excess gov hurts the economy, takes away some motivation, makes it more difficult for people to get private work & has so many other negatives.
“Is providing non-private transportation…something that should turn a profit…?”
I never said anything about turning a profit. Just not hemorrhaging money. Breaking even would be nice.
Good points, Scott. Those aren’t public goods. They’re personal services.
The problem is not that money is spent for public goods, but that those who spend it and support doing it have an irrational unwillingness to consider the concept of cost/benefit analysis. That, of course, is the underlying theme of most of what the antiplanner proposes. Some people need transit, and the public should try to cost effectively act to meet this need. In the private sector, businessmen would strive to provide the transit people need at the lowest possible price. i.e. cost per passenger mile. Rail advocates, however, who find paying attention to a rational analysis of the actual cost of providing transit to be abhorent, prefer to point out that we spend more money on roads, while ignoring the fact that highways serve a dramatically larger number of people than will ever use rail. Bus service, however, is far more flexible, and can be provided at a far lower cost per passenger mile than rail. If those commenting above, who claim to be worried about providing transport to the poor, elderly and kids, were actually concerned about them, they wouldn’t push for rail, because experience consistenly shows that the cost of providing rail inevitably eats into available funds to the point that transit officials frequently must reduce bus service TO THE POOR, ELDERLY AND KIDS WHO RELY UPON THAT SERVICE, so they can divert funds to rail. The antiplanner argues, and I would concur, that they do this because rail provides planners with a tool to control how, whether and where a community can grow. In the end, their goal is power, not transportation. €
Scott said: Medicine, food, housing, transportation, etc. are not public goods. Those are also not goods for society or general welfare. They could be classified as specific welfare & personal goods.
THWM: Roads are a form of collective welfare for your life style.
Frank said:
“Is providing non-private transportation…something that should turn a profit…?â€
I never said anything about turning a profit. Just not hemorrhaging money. Breaking even would be nice.
Good points, Scott. Those aren’t public goods. They’re personal services.
THWM: Does the US Army “break even”?
THWM: Does the US Army “break even�
Defense=public good. Transportation?public good. Get a brain cell. Your non sequitur comments add nothing.
How many more years are you going to crap on this blog? Trust me, I will find out who you are.
Government itself operates indefinitely at a loss. You aren’t seriously suggesting we should get rid of all government, are you?
But that’s an admittedly rhetorical point. My main issue here is that I don’t find anything to celebrate or declare “heartwarming”. An abrupt transition to reduced services and much higher fares seems like a painful transition to me. I’m not even necessarily suggesting that this particular bus service was being operated correctly. But it seems obvious that this could have been done more gently, and to declare that this jarring transition is “heartwarming” does smack of more concern with money than with the impact on real people’s lives.
So yes, I do think this has something to do with greed.
Spoken like a true road warrior. The article was about buses. How does that morph into an anti-rail diatribe?
I thought I was responding to comments made by a rail advocate about greed. I wasn’t aware that you share my concerns about the economics of rail. My recollection was that you are a rail advocate from previous comments you have posted. If not, as Gilda Radner used to say, “never mind.”
The problem is not that money is spent for public goods, but that those who spend it and support doing it have an irrational unwillingness to consider the concept of cost/benefit analysis.
A confident assertion made by someone far removed from the budget process. It must be true because it was asserted, right?
DS
Having served two terms as an elected local official, and a term on a plan commission and two terms as chair of a parks commission, I don’t consider myself “far removed from the budget process.” Wouldn’t it be equally true that your assertions to the contrary must also be true, arguendo, “because they were asserted?” Hardly a credible attack on the assertion I made though, was it?
The assertion was made without evidence, so the observation that stating something doesn’t make it true is perfectly valid. With the additional information, perhaps either ‘hasty generalization’ or ‘conflation’ is appropriate.
DS
“The assertion was made without evidence…”
Puhleeze. Dan never makes assertions without evidence.
$hit, Dan, with all those stones you throw, I’m surprised you have much of a house left.
Thanks, Frank. Saved me the trouble of pointing the absence of evidence in Dan’s “greed” comments.
Yes, it’s obvious that the gov usually fails in cost-benefit analysis. Those who are unaware of that should read more. It’s politicians that make spending decisions, mainly for votes.
Yes, Dan makes many comments that are too vague to have a meaning or that are his opinion, not based upon fact. I thought it unusual for him to type that claim alone is insufficient, without support.
Greed is awesome. It’s also called self interest & it motivates people to work. Profit is great & is done by providing a good or service that people want & are willing to pay for. There cannot be this immoral redistribution without free enterprise businesses producing wealth.
People often expand greed to immoral acts, such as theft, fraud & other illegal actions.
Thank you for making sh– up, Frank, just to have play. It’s a limp play, but still.
And thisland, failure to grasp basic rhetoric spam notwithstanding, it is sad that ignorance of rhetoric and limp plays distract away from the basic fact that parroting Reason “arguments” doesn’t address what is the best way to provision public goods. We simply get parrots squawking ‘prrrrrivate!’ and that’s taken as good enough in some circles.
Sprinkle in a few blatant falsehoods and trite canards, and you have a settled issue!
DS
“Thank you for making sh– up, Frank, just to have play.”
Not making anything up, Dan.
Having gone through hundreds of your posts on this site in an effort to ascertain your identity, I found time after time that you espouse opinion without any evidence. And that’s ok (this is a BLOG for crying out loud, not a peer reviewed academic publication) unless you call other people out for doing what you yourself do. You see, that makes you a hypocrite. And so does living in the suburbs while condemning others who defend suburban living (“McSuburbs” anyone? Oh, and “Why don’t the comical [suburb] haydurz move the F away if they hate it so much?”) I’m not making anything up “just to have play”; I’m exposing you for what you are: a hypocrite who makes countless posts to this blog while under the employ of taxpayers. I will continue to expose you Dan in an attempt to point out your hypocrisy and to coerce you into being more civil in your discourse.
This is my mission.
I’m not going anywhere.
As usual, Dan types w/no meaning.
Whatever point he’s trying to make might have some substance, if he would be more specific. He would still be wrong though.
Vague labels have no substance. Reason? arguments? Private? Falsehoods?
He seems to not understand too, which is his normal pattern. The overwhelming want, by some, for gov to provide non-public goods was not addressed.
Greed: “a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed.”
I fail to see how asking people to cover their full cost plus a little more (what is the profit margin on this venture? anyone?) so that people can make an honest living qualifies as greed.
Clayton county would have to have charged four times the amount (assuming all riders paid their full fares) they were charging to break even—about $4.40 a ticket.
Why do we treat local government budget process any different than personal budgeting? If I am on hard times and my expenditures exceed my revenue, I have to make choices, choices I outlined above.
And for those of you (especially government planners) who are so against profit, why don’t you turn down any portion of your salary that doesn’t go for food, transportation, and shelter? Hmm? Why is it ok for you as an individual to make a living, to profit, especially on the backs of taxpayers? Hmm?
Elephant in the room:
Transit can’t compete in our Government mandated car-only landscape of maximum density, single-use zoning, and cul-de-sacs.
The obsession of if transit should be public or private is the wrong question to be asking.
Waaah – pwease Fwank. I have Randal on speed-byte because often enough my comments get caught in spam queue due to the hyperlinks. Keep wanking and thrashing about trying to find something to limply mischaracterize.
And ws reminds us of a point we bring up often enough: transit needs minimum densities to run well. Seattle when I was there was 7 DU/ac. Less than that and its a tough go.
DS
Dan, you know, I believe you’re an intelligent and educated person, and I believe your contributions to discussion here can be beneficial. But your rhetoric, tone, and personal attacks are over the top and undermine your points.
If you really are skilled at “forging partnerships between diverse stakeholders” as you claim on your resume, perhaps you should put those skills to use here. I can’t believe you would act like this in person. Why should you online?
ws:
Funny you mention cul-de-sacs. Dan was a project manager on the Crystal Valley Ranch development outside Castle Rock. Some of the properties in this suburban, auto-centric development are on cul-de-sacs. One house in the development, currently listed for sale for $714k, is over 5,000 square feet and on a one-acre lot. It’s only a ten-minute drive to Safeway and to fine dining establishments like Pizza Hut. That’s a one-hour walk, and according to the town website, there are no transit options from the development, public or private. Once you walk the hour to town, however, you can then get on a bus to Walmart and the outlet mall, which has one of the town’s two McDonalds.
Elephant in the room indeed.
Wow. How devastating. I’m crushed. Too bad Frank isn’t capable of thinking to look at the topo or see that the preliminary plat and resultant contract was approved long before I got there, or that the market is mainly rich white conservatives who only consume certain products.
You got nothin’ lad.
[killfile] you too.
Back to the subtopic: autocentric land uses and transit trying to serve low density, esp problematic soon with rising gas prices.
DS
It’s hilarious how Dan (unknowing to himself) gets smacked down often by logic, principles, data, reasoning & such.
Yes, Dan is a big hypocrite & has many double standards.
He & many people, after proven wrong in discussion, usually either:
1. avoids response
2. directs to other topic
3. insults
4. generalizes in vagueness
5. rambles nonsense
6. uses faulty comparisons, fallacies
7. asks for source on a particular (ie vacant private land in Bay)
End result is no meaning/substance
Why do big-gov, anti-freedom/responsibility types not realize how they’re proven wrong, or understand many paragraphs typed?
(Or, the realize the benefits of free enterprise & Constitutional protection?):
1. selective comprehension
2. unfamiliar with reality
3. short on reading current events & other topics
4. focus on enviro
5. blinders on
6. playbook principles of Rules for Radicals; not necessarily on purpose; it’s just natural for big-gov types.
Don’t forget, capitalism does not mean anarchy.
We need limited government, maybe 20% of GDP, not 42%.
Many politicians & businessmen, like crony-capitalism, for special treatment. It would be great to get rid of those connections/favors. Bankers, especially, like the cozy relationship with gov. End the Fed!
Hey! The cause of this recession can be boiled down to 3 words: Loose Lending Standards
Within that, there is Congress, the GSEs, the credit raters, etc. Of course, housing prices were pushed in a few markets, via supply constraint.
Frank said:
Defense=public good. Public transportation=public good? Get a brain cell. Your non sequitur comments add nothing.
THWM: Are streets a public good? Yes, just like, mass transit, parks, police/fire departments & etc.
Frank, you can’t always put things in only monetary terms.
You might not see transit as very important, though it is for other people in society.
Frank: How many more years are you going to crap on this blog? Trust me, I will find out who you are.
THWM: Don’t worry Frank, Koch Oil is paying for this blog. It’s not like O’Toole has a real job, he’s a paid political lobbyist for them.
Any ways, I am, who I am. Just as you are, who you are.
Scott said: Many politicians & businessmen, like crony-capitalism, for special treatment.
THWM: Then why does the street in front of your home need a lobbyist like O’Toole to defend it from nothing?
Big-Corp can be even more manipulative & controling than Big-Gov!
“It’s not like O’Toole has a real job, he’s a paid political lobbyist for them.”
We’ve gone over this. O’Toole is not a registered lobbyist. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please present it or STFU. Also, comma splice.
Dan’s demands for evidence are extremely selective. Meanwhile: “I can’t provide evidence because of the spam queue.” But everyone else is expected to pony up.
“You got nothin’ lad.
[killfile] you too.”
Yeah. If I truly had nothing, you’d let it go,like water off a duck’s back, rather than resulting to playground taunts and outdated Usenet jargon. (Btw, does listing DOS on your resume actually help you get a job in this day and age?) Can’t escape culpability for your role (project manager) in the development of McSuburbs and one-acre lots, no matter how much you try to blame other participants.
And planning is not a crap job? Everything that’s been built in communities with planning departments, at least where I live, had to be approved by the planners before permits would be issued. And now, having done what planners made them do, developers are being criticised for building the cul de sacs and big lots and wide streets the planners MADE them build yesterday. Everything that planners are criticising about development today, was mandated by planners yesterday. Why should anyone believe that planners are right today when than they were apparently wrong yesterday? It takes a lot of hutzpah to blame your mistakes on the people you forced to implement them.
Charles Siegel has a new book out, Unplanning that explores the very cogent, insightful points thisland made in 47.
DS
Come on Frank where do you think O’Toole is getting his money?
You don’t have to be a “registered lobbyist” to be a lobbyist, you just need to be paid to push an agenda for some one else.
“You don’t have to be a ‘registered lobbyist’ to be a lobbyist…”
Wrong.
Comma splice.