Should public transport exist, or is too socialist?

I need evidence taxpayer money is subsidizing negative numbers.

I can't find it for Metra (Chicago area) ... in fact, the following link describes how it controls rolling stock ...

http://metrarail.com/metra/en/home/about_metra/lea...

I think it's a self sufficient entity operating at a profit.

When I lived in San Diego, there was no evidence the bus/trolley system was operating at a loss. Rates go up.

edit

Ira- Thanks for the heads up but I believe there are residual effects saving money w/ public transportation. There's less wear and tear on the roads and less traffic ... time is money.

Batman- I don't think it's too socialistic for most/all big cities. We have to consider what traffic would be like w/o it and how it would influence the people who depend heavily on it as it their primary source of mobility ... not to mention we're using the finite resource of fossil fuel to a lesser degree.

We could ask the same question (in USA) about our interstate highway system. If we had waited for Big Business to modernize our nation's highways after WW2, we would still be waiting. As a people, we need to get around. So as a people, we provide for our needs. If that is socialist, acting together in the national interest is socialist. If that is what socialism is, we need a lot more of it.

Only thing is that isn't what socialism is.

Public transport is only considered socialism by conservatives.

Private sector would do it cheaper and better in all cases where there was a market for it.

EDIT:

outside of very small sectors of some cities, the number of riders is not large enough to cause a significant change in traffic

More cars equals more gasoline bought by private individuals equals more tax revenue. More cars also equals more sales tax for all maintenance/upkeep item and for each vehicle sale on the primary and secondary vehicle market.

little to no additional repair needed as light passenger vehicles do very little damage to roads, as a matter of fact, eliminating all those very heavy buses might reduce repair costs.

As to congestion meaning that more/bigger roads needed: no, allow congestion and you encourage the free market to come up with solutions like RideShare and private mass transit businesses.

a few articles about how public transportation solutions do not cover their costs through fares:

EDITED to add about your beloved METRA from their own FAQs

http://metrarail.com/content/metra/en/home/utility...

How is Metra funded?

Metra receives 55 percent of its funding from fares. The rest is from public subsidies, primarily a small regional transportation sales tax, which also helps to fund the CTA and Pace.

EDITED to add numbers and backup for San Diego mass transit.

9 million dollar shortfall in 2007?

http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070816/news_...

From the SDMTS website:

Operating Budget

Approximately $243 million annual operating budget; $94 million comes from fares. Fare revenue accounts for 40% of annual operating cost, one of the highest fare box recovery ratios among similar transit systems (FY12).

http://www.sdmts.com/MTS/About_MTS.asp

http://www.r8ny.com/blog/larry_littlefield/fta_200...

http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/12151

Amtrak is improving, but still subsidized:

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/873/667/Amtrak-Covers-...

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/percent-378583-...

Here is one where in 2011 Chicago RTA had to raise fares to stay above their own mandated mere 50% of costs covered by fares;

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/11/metr-n09.h...

Public transportation run by the government is ALWAYS a money loser, it seems. Find me one that is completely unsubsidized by tax money.

It should not exist. Transportation is not a government function.

Yes, it should exist, especially since few can afford a car of their own any more.

Depends on the level of government.

Republicans have proven, they're in favor of air planes... As for trains, & busses, not so much...