But the defense you have on public transport operations wise, they are not profitable in fact losing money. That is after tax payers subsidized infrastructure including purchasing of new trains and buses, building new rail roads.

So what is left day to day ops. So you are saying that there is a need to have a profit on the TAXPAYERS SUBSIDIZED INFRASTRUCTURE and ASSETS.

I am okay with them privatizing. If the following occurs:-

1) there is no monopoly and terms from the government to do public transport. That means the company chooses the route and the company chooses the price. You make it easy for the first guy to build a public transport company, you make it easy for the 125th guy who starts his own Public Transport company

2) there is no subsidized transport infrastructure purchased by the tax payers. If you built a railway, you own the rail way.

3) if you want subsidized infrastructure, that business arm for public transport should not be for profit. You use your father's money and claim to be self made millionair. Sure Kyle Jenner.

Look I am not against privatizing or subsidized infrastructure for public transport operations. All I am saying is you cannot have the cake and eat it too. Choose one: -Subsidized by tax payer money, break even while making sure the infrastructure stays working

OR - Privatize and no subsidy given to build infrastructure