NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/ne/general/3563

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 2.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!rutgers!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!xn.ll.mit.edu!hsdndev!cfa203!borden
From: [e-mail] (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: ne.general
Subject: Re: Drinking and the MBTA was Re: Sunday Liquor Sales
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 92 16:48:43 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Distribution: ne
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA
Lines: 29

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>>That is - while "we", the T riders, also pay taxes, there are many
>>taxpayers who do not use the T, and would likely prefer the current
>>pay-to-use setup over increased taxes.
>
>But riding the T is a service to non-riders also, less traffic, less
>pollution, more parking, bringing customers into the downtown business
>district (for those who benefit from that), cutting gas consumption,
>etc.

I personally don't object to the subsidization of the T, for the purpose
of cutting down on automobile use, because I think that's an important
enough goal.  My objection is to also disallowing competing private service.
My counter to the objection raised that competing private service will take
revenue away from the T on the profitable lines while not bothering to run
the unprofitable ones is that the unprofitable T lines will require the same
subsidy in any case - the only difference is whether that subsidy will come
from T fares from profitable lines or from general tax revenues.  I say, take
it from general tax revenues, if that proves to be necessary, and allow the
competing lines to run.  We'll all have more options that way, without
having to counteract the policy goal of decreasing automobile usage.

There is a reason, on the other hand, for a government monopoly on subway
service, which is that we can't have everyone digging tunnels under the
city.

   - Dave Borden
     [e-mail]