System A generates profits for its operators and receives no direct state contributions, however, remember that the operators will allow certain licenses that may be regarded as indirect forms of subsidy: declare presumptive income tax, so it can hide some of their profits, they can also evade obligations pension and experienced drivers work long hours. Then it is fallacious to say that System A does not cost you a single penny to the state.
System A has 7,000 buses, with a wide range of services in virtually every City, large length of the routes, hotlines between all origins and destinations with significant demand, superposition of tens lines on the main axes, competition between buses to attract passengers and incentives for everyone to pay their passages (that depends on the salary of the driver and the bus owner's profits, in many cases two people are the same.) In a universe parallel exists Train, which can be used in conjunction with A, but do not have any interaction, so much so that charge fees separately. The train has strong support from the State, which finances the construction of its lines and purchase of cars. Very importantly, the system to generate profits for its operators and receives no direct state contributions, however, remember that the operators will allow certain licenses that may be regarded as indirect forms of subsidy: declare presumptive income tax, so can hide some of their profits, they can also evade pension obligations and their drivers experience long working hours. Then it is fallacious to say that System A does not cost you a single penny to the state.
Moreover, the "B" is almost the same number of buses that A, but distributed differently: has shorter lines established so that the distance traveled by vehicles is lower than in A, and therefore it the need to transfer between lines is greater for a trip. In addition, many feed lines Train, and both transfers between buses and to and from the train for two hours are free (or almost free since the period of peak demand a little charged to transfer to the train.) It is what is called integrated. In general, the quality of service in B is less homogeneous than A: there are areas of the City often high and more or less regular, express services and even super-express (using super-express routes, originally created to favor only the car), but also there is darkness, usually away from the center, where the frequency and coverage are poor and persistent discontent. Importantly, the system generates losses, which must be covered by someone (someone = State). Despite the losses as traders win, thanks to the basics of the game, bases also stipulated that if I would have losses, they should raise the rate until the system is self-financing.
The Government changed for B, and aware that B, as it is, will generating a deficit, asked that the state take care of that. Given this, the obvious question is why subsidize B, if A, which was not much worse than B, left (supposedly) free?
First of all, for the many benefits generated by the bus to the city compared with the Auto (*), is socially justified subsidize the bus system, whatever it (A, B or otherwise), be self-supporting or not . If, for example, the system is like A, which receives no direct input from the State, the subsidy is justified to improve the quality of service, through which people are expected to move from the car to the bus, improving the levels congestion, pollution, need for road space and other variables, which we all live better. In fact, any savings in any of these variables can be quantified in money, exercise of which you can calculate a socially optimal subsidy. For example, may be subsidized an amount equal to the expected benefits (quantified financially), so if the subsidy is raised in such a way, really is not an expense because it generates benefits at least equivalent.
However, a different theme is that the state has more pressing needs where they spend their limited resources, which, of priorities, it is prudent to subsidize public transport. This debate is of course necessary and very worthy of consideration arguments, but that debate did not exist when the State decided to subsidize the train and the aforementioned super-express routes to the car.
recap, "subsidy for the bus? In general, yes
Grant "B? Of course, if B is a system of buses ... but not any subsidy. Much of the deficit of B is explained by its rate unrealistically low (much lower than in A when compared on the same basis) and a significant fraction of its users, some say 20% - does not pay. The Government, instead of addressing both problems, wants the state to pay for them. In other words, a "subsidy" for this purpose has nothing to do with the grant described here, justified by the profits generated by The Bus With this, the ideal chain of events emerges clearly: (1) Update the rate of inflation (at least) and perhaps increase in value of some inputs, (2) Establish effective mechanisms to lower evasion (incentives for monitoring by operators and control) and (3) Only then calculate the optimal value of the grant, to finance mechanisms such as fleet management and works to improve the quality of service, and possibly operation (only if necessary). The problem arises when the idealistic air crashes that claim the real world and choices.
(*) For each person carried, The Bus generates much less congestion, pollution and accidents, consume less power and requires 10 to 20 times less space than the car.
Moreover, the "B" is almost the same number of buses that A, but distributed differently: has shorter lines established so that the distance traveled by vehicles is lower than in A, and therefore it the need to transfer between lines is greater for a trip. In addition, many feed lines Train, and both transfers between buses and to and from the train for two hours are free (or almost free since the period of peak demand a little charged to transfer to the train.) It is what is called integrated. In general, the quality of service in B is less homogeneous than A: there are areas of the City often high and more or less regular, express services and even super-express (using super-express routes, originally created to favor only the car), but also there is darkness, usually away from the center, where the frequency and coverage are poor and persistent discontent. Importantly, the system generates losses, which must be covered by someone (someone = State). Despite the losses as traders win, thanks to the basics of the game, bases also stipulated that if I would have losses, they should raise the rate until the system is self-financing.
The Government changed for B, and aware that B, as it is, will generating a deficit, asked that the state take care of that. Given this, the obvious question is why subsidize B, if A, which was not much worse than B, left (supposedly) free?
First of all, for the many benefits generated by the bus to the city compared with the Auto (*), is socially justified subsidize the bus system, whatever it (A, B or otherwise), be self-supporting or not . If, for example, the system is like A, which receives no direct input from the State, the subsidy is justified to improve the quality of service, through which people are expected to move from the car to the bus, improving the levels congestion, pollution, need for road space and other variables, which we all live better. In fact, any savings in any of these variables can be quantified in money, exercise of which you can calculate a socially optimal subsidy. For example, may be subsidized an amount equal to the expected benefits (quantified financially), so if the subsidy is raised in such a way, really is not an expense because it generates benefits at least equivalent.
However, a different theme is that the state has more pressing needs where they spend their limited resources, which, of priorities, it is prudent to subsidize public transport. This debate is of course necessary and very worthy of consideration arguments, but that debate did not exist when the State decided to subsidize the train and the aforementioned super-express routes to the car.
recap, "subsidy for the bus? In general, yes
Grant "B? Of course, if B is a system of buses ... but not any subsidy. Much of the deficit of B is explained by its rate unrealistically low (much lower than in A when compared on the same basis) and a significant fraction of its users, some say 20% - does not pay. The Government, instead of addressing both problems, wants the state to pay for them. In other words, a "subsidy" for this purpose has nothing to do with the grant described here, justified by the profits generated by The Bus With this, the ideal chain of events emerges clearly: (1) Update the rate of inflation (at least) and perhaps increase in value of some inputs, (2) Establish effective mechanisms to lower evasion (incentives for monitoring by operators and control) and (3) Only then calculate the optimal value of the grant, to finance mechanisms such as fleet management and works to improve the quality of service, and possibly operation (only if necessary). The problem arises when the idealistic air crashes that claim the real world and choices.
(*) For each person carried, The Bus generates much less congestion, pollution and accidents, consume less power and requires 10 to 20 times less space than the car.
