> The free market doesn't, at least theoretically, work very well for transit.
We actually have some historical record to examine in this area, though you have to look pretty far back in US history to find a time when the government wasn't directly involved in the transit business.
James J. Hill built the Great Northern railroad in the late 1800's without taking any subsidies. He competed directly with subsidized railroads in the mid- and far west, consistently delivering lower prices and superior service to his customers.
As for highways, thousands of miles were created by private for-profit companies during the first half of the 19th century before highways and railways began to be taken over by government beginning with the Lincoln administration.
The point isn't that you can't have private railroads or highways. The point is that the free market creates less than an efficient amount of transit if you put the burden of paying for that infrastructure entirely on people who travel instead of all the people who benefit thereby.
> The point is that the free market creates less than an efficient amount of transit
I understand your point, but am providing a real world example in the form of a privately run railroad that was more efficient than its subsidized competitors.
> put the burden of paying for that infrastructure entirely on people who travel instead of all the people who benefit thereby
I agree with this part of the statement, but it's false to assume the free market can't utilize this payment model.
The bulk of the railways and roads that I cited were paid for not only with user fees but investments by businesses or entrepreneurs who rightly assumed that they'd reap benefits from railways and roads being constraucted in their districts.
Needs a discussion on "efficiency." Transit can be profitable without being socially beneficial - simply cut out everything but the sure wins from your routes. The population of low-volume regions will be under-served, but your company will have a good balance sheet.
I mean "efficient" as it's generally defined: maximum productivity with minimal wasted effort or expense.
In the case of the Great Northern railroad, the efficiencies were passed on to the customer in terms of ever falling costs and an expanding network of service.
> The population of low-volume regions will be under-served
No, it's the opposite! Low-volume regions are underserved with centrally planned government transportation. The planner has limited resources that must be "democratically" administered.
In a free market, any underserved area provides an opportunity for an entrepreneur to serve that need in the market! It's an elegant system that serves the needs of the people faster with less waste.
We actually have some historical record to examine in this area, though you have to look pretty far back in US history to find a time when the government wasn't directly involved in the transit business.
James J. Hill built the Great Northern railroad in the late 1800's without taking any subsidies. He competed directly with subsidized railroads in the mid- and far west, consistently delivering lower prices and superior service to his customers.
As for highways, thousands of miles were created by private for-profit companies during the first half of the 19th century before highways and railways began to be taken over by government beginning with the Lincoln administration.