Socializing Public Transport for Everyday City Use. - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14942571
AFAIK wrote:The Paddington ghost train is run by a private company.

But who pays for it? and why does it run? It's called a parliamentary train for a reason.

AFAIK wrote: There are also ghost flights operated by private airlines from the privately owned Heathrow airport.


There is a subtly different thing going on there. For a start those empty flights are the consequence of contractual quirks for one of the busiest and most crowded airports in the world and a relative rarity rather than a normal everyday thing as with the Adelaide and Sydney "free" ghost buses. Unlike the adelaide and sydney ghost buses those ghost flights are kept to a minimum needed to satisfy contractual obligations in order to save resources.

It's interesting you brought up commercial airflight though; would you like to see "free" tax funded airflights? After all a commercial passenger plane is basically just a bus or train which happens to fly.
Last edited by SolarCross on 27 Aug 2018 17:52, edited 1 time in total.
#14942591
SolarCross wrote::lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Are you really going to make me type this? Yes: all three. 1. Adelaide 2. London 3. Sydney

I swear to god are you trying to become the god-king of sealions?

Image


I think it would be best if you actually made your argument for you.

If I went and looked at the videos and paraphrased the argument of the person who made the video and then tied into our discussion and made a claim based on that, it may not be the same claim you think you are making with these videos.

Then you would accuse me of making a strawman instead of selioning you.

Either way, you end up accusing me of something, but this way I can avoid the work of writinh your argument out for you.

Now, does Adelaide have the problem of not having enough feedback because the consmer cannot vote with their pocket book, as you originally claimed?
#14942594
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think it would be best if you actually made your argument for you.

If I went and looked at the videos and paraphrased the argument of the person who made the video and then tied into our discussion and made a claim based on that, it may not be the same claim you think you are making with these videos.

Then you would accuse me of making a strawman instead of selioning you.

Either way, you end up accusing me of something, but this way I can avoid the work of writinh your argument out for you.

Now, does Adelaide have the problem of not having enough feedback because the consmer cannot vote with their pocket book, as you originally claimed?


:roll: I actually give up on you now. You ask for evidence, I give you evidence. If you don't like it just shut the fuck up instead of bullshitting me.
#14942599
Sure.

Here is a link to an article showing how transit users in Adelaide are actually complaining far more once the service became partly privatised:

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/bus ... 863375de0b

    LATE and unreliable services, racism allegations and reports of poor hygiene are among thousands of bus commuter complaints to Transport Department in the past six months.

    New figures show the department has received 7562 feedback reports - more than 40 a day - since it switched a third of services to a new, private operator last October.

    Complaints included allegations of a bus driver picking his teeth with a ticket and then shuffling it into a stack of unsold tickets, while another driver was accused of refusing to pick up a Muslim woman.

    Details of the problems emerged after a Freedom of Information request by the Opposition led to the release of more than 100 pages of complaints against the Outer North East contract area in just three months, most of which involved failed or late services.

    The Advertiser has also been investigating complaints by a passenger who said the consistent lateness of his bus service had led to questions from his employer.

    Transport Service Minister Chloe Fox is yet to impose fines for the chaos that ensued in the first few weeks after private operator Transfield took over one-third of Adelaide Metro routes. Buses were regularly late or did not arrive at all, drivers did not know their routes and timetables were flawed.

I bolded the phrases that show that it is a private company that is causing the problems. Please note that these complaints are being collected by a public system.
#14942605
@SolarCross the problems you describe exist currently in public transportation that require fees to use.

My ideology is left wing so I tend to support left wing policy. You are just as "bad" in the other direction. Again when I made fun of your diet you brought up communism. You are much more of a mindless ideologue than I am since I can have conversations without bringing up your love of fascism.
#14942615
Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure.
I bolded the phrases that show that it is a private company that is causing the problems. Please note that these complaints are being collected by a public system.


You cherry picked your quote to disguise that the government was still subsidising them. As per my point 1 it does not matter whether the service provider is notionally private or public if the customer is the government rather than the user of the service.

Did you know one of the ways I earn some money is as a taxi driver? What do you suppose would happen if the government employed me to provide free rides?

-----------

@Red_Army
Fascism is communism lite. The only good thing I, or any sensible person, could say of fascism is that it is the lesser of two evils when compared with the uberfascism which is communism. Otherwise I cheerfully piss all over it.
#14942618
SolarCross wrote:You cherry picked your quote to disguise that the government was still subsidising them. As per my point 1 it does not matter whether the service provider is notionally private or public if the customer is the government rather than the user of the service.


No, I did not cherry pick anyth8ng.

In fact, I provided a link to the article, quoted the appropriate text, and bolded the important phrases, just so that everyone would be able to read the context and know exactly what the background is and how everything relates.

Your video does not do this.

So we see that private systems, in this case, cause more problems, and the feedback system that caught the problems is a public system.

Did you know one of the ways I earn some money is as a taxi driver? What do you suppose would happen if the government employed me to provide free rides?


You would get better benefits.
#14942619
Pants-of-dog wrote:You would get better benefits.


Not necessarily for example the NHS staff are paid rather poorly and are over worked compared with private hospitals. However the real losers would be the customers because I wouldn't need to please them anymore...
Last edited by SolarCross on 27 Aug 2018 16:46, edited 2 times in total.
#14942622
SolarCross wrote:Not necessarily for example the NHS staff are paid rather poorly and over worked compared with private hospitals. However the real losers would be the customers because I wouldn't need to please them anymore...


I was not talking about nurses. I was talking about you.

I am certain that city bus drivers get better benefits than self employed taxi drivers.

And we already saw evidence that private companies increased the number of complaints from customers.
#14942625
Pants-of-dog wrote:I was not talking about nurses. I was talking about you.

I am certain that city bus drivers get better benefits than self employed taxi drivers.

Nurse, bus driver or taxi driver all are service providers. What could happen to nurses could happen to taxi drivers. A government can choose to under pay or over pay compared with what the actual users of a service would choose to pay, however neither overpaying nor underpaying can be regarded as rational or beneficial in general.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And we already saw evidence that private companies increased the number of complaints from customers.

What we saw was that a subsidised service is just as shit if the operator is notionally private instead of public.

Let there be a one to one mapping between customer and user for optimal efficiency.
#14942653
SolarCross wrote:Nurse, bus driver or taxi driver all are service providers. What could happen to nurses could happen to taxi drivers. A government can choose to under pay or over pay compared with what the actual users of a service would choose to pay, however neither overpaying nor underpaying can be regarded as rational or beneficial in general.


This just seems like a laundry list of possible issues instead of an actual argument.

What we saw was that a subsidised service is just as shit if the operator is notionally private instead of public.


Not quite. You seem to be implying that both are equally bad. The fact is that the private service was worse.

Let there be a one to one mapping between customer and user for optimal efficiency.


Why do you assume this is the most efficient arrangement for public transportation?
#14942700
Pants-of-dog wrote:This just seems like a laundry list of possible issues instead of an actual argument.

To you, Mr Sealion. Arf arf arf

Pants-of-dog wrote:Not quite. You seem to be implying that both are equally bad. The fact is that the private service was worse.

sample size n=1. Besides that "private company" had only just taken over the route and was on a subsidy. The subsidy alone is enough to explain how they can persist in business doing a shitty job of pleasing their customers because their real customer was the government who is happy to pay for incompetence.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Why do you assume this is the most efficient arrangement for public transportation?

The question really is why you would assume it isn't? That is just normal economics, supply and demand, all that. Why wouldn't it work like food or consumer electronics?

Why would a totalitarian believe there is something wrong with normal economics which only totalitarianism can fix? Oh right confirmation bias, if not outright deceitfulness.
#14942767
Sivad wrote:
Not really when you consider the many positive externalities created by public transportation. It increases economic growth, it frees up space that would otherwise be used for parking lots, decreases congestion, saves taxpayers money on road construction and maintenance, it increases land value, etc. Everyone who benefits from it should pay for it and pretty much everyone does benefit from it in one way or another.


Which is why taxpayer funded projects to aid in construction and to potentially help defray the initial costs of use makes sense to me. I can also see how if the real price was something too large, say, $4 or $5 a ride when it can be much cheaper, there could be subsidies for this and long-term plans to make the system more efficient and thus more cheap.

But, ultimately, why not charge people $1-2 when they catch a ride? It literally generates millions & millions of dollars and can pay for itself.

Why is it so vital that the service be absolutely free?

Yes, I am well aware that I pay over $70-80 a month on my subway rides but that is because I literally use it daily. Let a retiree who almost never uses it, or let someone who moved close to their place of work, reap those benefits of never paying -- not even through taxes.
#14942773
SolarCross wrote:To you, Mr Sealion. Arf arf arf


It ismpossible that some or all of these issues are actually problems.

It is also possible that none ofnthese are issues.

Both are logically possible.

Why should I believe that these issues are actually problems when the idea that they are not is equally valid?

sample size n=1. Besides that "private company" had only just taken over the route and was on a subsidy. The subsidy alone is enough to explain how they can persist in business doing a shitty job of pleasing their customers because their real customer was the government who is happy to pay for incompetence.


This is possible. It is also possible that the private company is in for the profit and therefore hired the cheapest (i.e. worst) drivers it could legally get away with.

Also, please note that the number of complaints, and the news article associated with it, brought the bad behaviour of the company to the attention of the paying party.

This is not only bad business, but shows that public systems can have feedback systems that are as good or better than the private option relying on people voting with thier wallets. This contradicts your claim.

The question really is why you would assume it isn't? That is just normal economics, supply and demand, all that. Why wouldn't it work like food or consumer electronics?


Because not all market behaviour can be explained in Economics 101.

This is why there are higher level economics classes.

Now, why do you assume that a one to one mapping between customer and user would be the most efficient arrangement for public transportation?
#14942835
SolarCross wrote: What do you suppose would happen if the government employed me to provide free rides?

They could cancel those ghost buses you hate and save lots of money.

I don't support free-at-the-point-of-use transport. I support subsidies for public transport and taxes on private transport.
#14942844
AFAIK wrote:They could cancel those ghost buses you hate and save lots of money.

Sure replace a ghost bus with a ghost car. For maximum efficiency I could just collect the subsidy and stay home playing video games. Motion approved.

AFAIK wrote:I don't support free-at-the-point-of-use transport. I support subsidies for public transport and taxes on private transport.

The latter is half way to the former. If we don't fetishise the words "public" and "private" by superstitiously ascribing virtuous connotations to the former and baleful connotations on the latter, then what you are proposing is that company A gets to steal the revenue from company B to use to offer discounts to company A's customers. Essentially you are saying company A gets to parasitise company B. Leaving aside whether that is good sportsmanship or fair, the effect will surely just be that company B will have to be twice as lean and mean just to survive while company A gets to be twice as fat, lazy and careless about pleasing its customers. It actually baffles me why any people could think this is a general good for anyone.
#14943167
The video you posted said there are bus routes in Adelaide with only one passenger, replace those 6 bus drivers with 1 taxi driver and save lots of money. :)

Are you opposed to the gov't spending money on roads, bridges and car parks, too? We can't let anyone have anything nice because it is unfair. :(

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainl[…]

Yes, and that conditional statement is not necessa[…]

They're going to bring the debunked "Russiaga[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0pAf3aBt18 How […]