The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Should public transport users pay their way? > Comments

Should public transport users pay their way? : Comments

By Alan Davies, published 1/10/2010

Subsidising public transport makes it less useful to those who really need it.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
mono-rails are old-hat
what we need is a modern/light rail

like the cane-trains..!

lets face-it..they get a return..
simply from cane..season/usage
come in pre-fab..sections...
and carry-stuff..for a cheap infastructure-cost

they only need a reasonable grade/slope
and can generate..their own charge downhill
and glide the rest of the way

only the uphill bits need power
and really only need link up to the current/transport-hubs
computers could design it by guidence of population numbers and a contour map in seconds...

manufacturors could be building its sections..in days...
[fiberglass manufacturors could be making the personal[instant]..[personal/mobility-pods...in days]...outfitters fitting them-out in weeks...

biking has taught me the value of coasting-up hills
with minimul assist...they could glide over/most hills
[as i hear the..electric-bikes do wonderfully..on hills]
Posted by one under god, Monday, 4 October 2010 3:40:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fantastic posts Hasbeen, I agree with your proposals.Posted by King Hazza

Here, here, I like it to.
Posted by rehctub, Monday, 4 October 2010 7:23:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen (and others),

Overall, you make very good points. However,

Consider:

Does it take the 2499 people of your village (plus your good self) 45-60 minutes to travel 10km each morning and each evening?

No.

Are there many more jobs in your village for "city slickers" to take up so they can escape the city crap they have to deal with?

Not enough to alleviate congestion in the cities, I'm guessing.

Is housing unaffordable for 80%* of the population to live anywhere near their place of employment?

Not in comparison to the cities, at least.

The need for improved, adequate public transport in the cities is, particularly in Melbourne and Sydney, getting desperate. Yet governments seem intent on wasting tax payer money on roads that simply encourage more road use and greater congestion. This in turn creates a spiral of road maintenance costs etc etc, which in turn takes cash away from rural expenditure, and also pushes up everyone's registration costs, and also leads to, for some strange reason, the desire to build more roads to alleviate congestion.

Therefore, PT use in the cities needs to be encouraged. This can be done by:
A: improving sevices
B: reducing costs to consumers.

(There's the environmental incentive on top of all this)

It is even argued by some number crunchers that free PT would, overall, cost the public purse less. I'm a bit dubious on this one though!

*Manufactured statistic, simply an educated guess. But I reckon a bit conservative
Posted by TrashcanMan, Monday, 4 October 2010 9:39:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am surprised that none of the discussion here has taken into account
that we may not be able to afford to drive a car to work in the near future.
The public system will have to cater for a lot of people who now drive
to work as a matter of course. How will that change be funded ?
Can the infrastructure cope with a 30 to 50 % increase in patronage ?
To make things difficult the change over will reduce the fuel tax
income as well.
Remember the charging schemes you are discussing will perhaps be made
redundant in just single digit years.
You are falling into the same trap that the politicians now live in.
ie that is everything will continue in the same straight line as it
has for the last fifty years.
Can we get the discussion on how to manage the change ?
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 8:54:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
brennie
You are missing the point. The public transport service is not run at a loss - it has already been paid for via the tax dollar. As I said if you read my post properly, it is about working out what is important and what should be funded by revenue and how much. I am not arguing the service should be free (a small charge) but this article talked about ridding of concessions and the like which goes against any principles of public 'service'.

If all public services were run at a profit or break-even we would be individually paying our taxes PLUS a lot more for fire, police and other essential services including hospital on top of revenue allocated to those areas.

There are a lot of hands out for a piece of the pie and it is how the pie is divided that should be the at the forefront of public discourse. Not only how the pie is divided but what should governments be funding
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 9:21:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican
I think you've misread the article. It doesn't advocate eliminating concessions at all, quite the reverse. It says that those who can afford it should pay the full cost of public transport, esp CBD workers or their employers.
Posted by Claudiecat, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 10:34:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy