public transport

[timwilky]

please read this first

OK. this is what I don't understand. Why should anyone fund "public transport", except the people that use it.

Surely if public transport is usable people will in turn use it.


By usable, I mean :-

Affordable
Available
convienient
safe
comfortable

So if you want to run a transport system, and have not got the money to do so. Do what business has to do. Go to the markets with your business plan. If it is sound, people will invest.

The above tax on business was rejected as not appropriate in a recession etc. But what sort of idiot thinks anybody but the customer should have to pay for any service.

I do not have a telephone, I would be fuming if BT made me pay so they can run wire past my house. Why should the public at large pay for goods/services they do not use?

Originally Posted by timwilky

By usable, I mean :-

Affordable
Available
convienient
safe
comfortable

Of which it only fulfills 1 possibly 2 of those in my opinion.

• It is by no means affordable, prices continue to go up at an astonishing rate.
• Convenient, on occasion yes but more often than not no, it takes me 3 hours to get to YC's house (if I'm home) for what should be a 3quarter of an hour journey. Unfortunately the bus connections I regularly deal with are rubbish and usually mean waiting about for half an hour/an hour.
• Safe no, the amount of nutters that get on - intoxicated or sober - certainly don't make you feel safe, the bus drivers couldn't care less either.
• Comfortable, well they're getting better but to be honest I would rather the other 4 options were considered before worrying about how my bum will feel after a half hour journey

As they've mentioned in the article, increasing tax on it couldn't be suggested at a worse time, clearly the penpushers are in safe financial hands and couldn't give a rat's pennywhistle what difficulties others are in.

My 2ps worth anyhoo

It's a vicious circle I'm afraid. People will not start using public transport until it fill the criteria you mention. Unfortunately, it will never do this without a huge investment. That money has to come from somewhere, and as it's 'Public Transport' we as 'The Public' should fund it to a certain extent. We should look to other countries for examples of how a public transport system should be run. How are we supposed to reduce traffic without a good public transport system. If we don't do something we will all end up crawling along in traffic, our speeds being monitored and basically having a sh*t time everytime we venture onto our road network. Personally I'm happy to pay a bit more tax to get lots of cars off the road.
Would you use the same arguement with regard to the NHS? Just because you don't use the service doesn't mean you shouldn't pay for it. That's how it works in the UK. We are all free to emigrate if we don't like it.

Originally Posted by madness

Would you use the same arguement with regard to the NHS? Just because you don't use the service doesn't mean you shouldn't pay for it. That's how it works in the UK.

Indeed even if you don't actually think you use the services now, you know they are there should you actually have need for them.

[timwilky]

No it is not the same argument re NHS etc. This is funded by tax which is fair if a scheme is "public". We all pay. Other schemes selects who pays.

However, surely if there is then a universal public transport system. We all should be entitled to the same provisions, ie 24 hour operation 7 days a week. same cost/mile irrespective of where you live etc.

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by timwilky

Why should the public at large pay for goods/services they do not use?

cause otherwise the doley bast*rds wouldn't be able to get into town to get their free money every week...

</dailymail>

[the_lone_wolf]

of course, public transport does have some advantages:

The problem is that 'public' transport is run by 'private' companies and therefore, profit is the primary concern. The actual service provided is way down on the list of priorities and so you have the vicious circle already mentioned. As people stop using it, the prices have to go up to cover the shortfall in turnover and more people stop using it.

When I go to the pub, it costs £3.20 on a bus. To get a taxi is £6 so when the current Mrs Woz comes with me why would we want to stand in the cold waiting for a bus when it's cheaper to order a taxi?

I don't think the tax will matter. Fuel duty is going up and therefore they'll charge more anyway. Unless that doesn't apply to public transport or somethin', i dunno.

Public transport hasn't really ever let me down, but i haven't given it much of a chance to.

<business grad mode on>

look at the bigger picture.
we all want better public transport.

Consumer view
Transport companies have put fares up to the point where they have become almost unaffordable (particulalrly trains). The cost of running a car's gone up, so punters are caught between a rock and a hard place.

Transport company view
the cost of runnig public transport's gone up . Shateholders still want their cake, infrastructure's a mess (but out of their control) and the punters want a better service for their money.

Local busines view
It's getting harder for customes to park thie cars (parking restrictions, parkinbg space being sold for propoerty development etc). and with consumer spending going down, affecting return on shareholdings, how can they attract customes? Answer: help make it easier for them to get there by investing in public transport.

Local government view
we need to spend existing budgets on schools, hospitals and other front line public serices. Shopping isn't a priority. We want to help local businesses boost their profits, so let's set up a way of helping them to get customers.

Compare it to when you go on a package holiday and the transfer from the airport to hotel are laid on for you. What would you rather have - fifty quid off the price of your holiday or have to find your own way to a strange place in a strange land where you can't understand the language.