NationStates Jolt Archive

not sure how things work in the states, so this may be UK/Europe only possibility, but a friend of mine suggested something on the bus the other day that i've never heard suggested before, regarding public transport.

the idea was simply to make all public transport such as busses & trains free to enter and use, but paid for through taxes such as a rise in national insurance contributions. the taxes would only cover the costs of running the services (thus do not generate profit as prices do now, thus this will require renationalisation). each individual's extra tax contribution for this scheme would be relatively low - perhaps £20ish a year if that. the first couple of years could be more to allow for an expensive and complete overhaull of the public transportation system - people would be more willing to travel on busses and trains if they were just a bit nicer.
sure, the major problem with this is that if you don't use your 'share' of bus rides that you are entitled to, then you loose out. refunds would require a ridiculously expensive system and are impractical on this scale. the only thing i can say about this problem is that in the long run, the disbenefits to any individual are far outweighed by the benefit to society - of course some (selfish) people won't care but fuck em ;). also, while in the short run there would be considerable controvesy over the system, once people get used to paying the tax and just hopping on a bus/train for free, then they'll start to use the system more. in the long run these complains will simply peter out as PT becomes the normal method of transport (at least more than it is now). it is only the transition from individual transport to public transport that will problematic and potentially unpopular.

a secondary problem would be that people in the country don't have access to public transport as frequently (simply because the country is bigger than cities). thus it would either be best to have more services put on (at extra tax cost) in the area to make up this difference, or to scrap the system entirely in the country. i reckon this should be up to the residents of a locality to vote for in council elections.

one main advantage of this scheme would be that it provides a viable, easy-to-use and high quality public transport service to encourage people to use PT more often. thus (certainly in cities) use of cars could go down, meaning it would be possible to increase fuel charges and thus discourage people from using petrol without the huge backlash you would see today - hence the scheme is good for environmentalist goals. the extra tax revenue from increased fuel charges (assuming petrol is an inelastic good - which it is) could be ploughed back into the system. people in the country who vote not to go for the PT system could have a reduction in their fuel tax (perhaps a special card or something, i dunno).

any comments on this (seemingly quite socialist) suggestion?

Wouldn't work in the US. Too much area to cover.

Although i suppose individual cities could set it up like that.

I like it. But... as far as I remember, in Britain, isn't public transport privately owned? A tax would imply gov't ownership. I could be wrong, mind. I tend not to care who runs the trains as long as they run. If it would be a basically un-noticeable charge, I wouldn't mind paying it.

a waste of money for us in the states we dont have enough public transportation except in HUGE cities for it to matter. dunno about britain

You've never heard that suggestion before? I would love that system, I'm for nationilisation

a secondary problem would be that people in the country don't have access to public transport as frequently (simply because the country is bigger than cities). thus it would either be best to have more services put on (at extra tax cost) in the area to make up this difference, or to scrap the system entirely in the country. i reckon this should be up to the residents of a locality to vote for in council elections.
Wait... country people have to pay extra for services the're not gonna use? Seems a little unfair...

There are the problems you suggest.. but to add another, there will be no push for reinvestment into the transportation system as time goes on.. today public transport generates profit which allows for reinvestment and advancement.. for more efficency more saftey.. but on a system running at cost rates requireing tax hikes to pay for reinvestment to advance dated systems.. governments will be hard pressed to get such tax hikes passed... the system you suggest is ineffective at best (though a good thought)... privitization is a far better solution.. if something goes wrong, private companies can be held accountable by the government and their clients/investors.. government instutions are more likely to spread fault and ultimatly no accountablity will result.. as in most government run programs today.

Wait... country people have to pay extra for services the're not gonna use? Seems a little unfair...
yeah, but hell, most people object to extra taxes for things that EVERYONE uses even

It really depends on the style and goals of the government. I personally do not think the government should choose to globally spend my money on a service I may or may not use. If I choose to use public transportation instead of private, I can very easily pay the nominal fee. That way, only those people using the service cover the costs of operating it.

The only people that would benefit from a free service, managed with tax dollars, are those that are unable to afford it normally. If you can’t afford a basic necessity you should not receive a globally subsidized “free ride.” Instead you should be able to seek assistance from charitable organizations.

Use a service, pay for a service. Don’t use a service and you don’t have to pay for it.

If you are unable to earn an income, receive assistance from people willing to assist you. Don’t force every member of society to pay for those that are unable to manage their own lives but certainly encourage people to voluntarily donate to worthy causes.

I like it. But... as far as I remember, in Britain, isn't public transport privately owned? A tax would imply gov't ownership. I could be wrong, mind. I tend not to care who runs the trains as long as they run. If it would be a basically un-noticeable charge, I wouldn't mind paying it.
yeah PT firms would need to be renationalised.

Wait... country people have to pay extra for services the're not gonna use? Seems a little unfair...
country folk wouldn't have to go with the system. they could have reduced price petrol instead as compensation (leaving them pretty much in the same situation they are in now).

There are the problems you suggest.. but to add another, there will be no push for reinvestment into the transportation system as time goes on.. today public transport generates profit which allows for reinvestment and advancement.. for more efficency more saftey.. but on a system running at cost rates requireing tax hikes to pay for reinvestment to advance dated systems.. governments will be hard pressed to get such tax hikes passed... the system you suggest is ineffective at best (though a good thought)... privitization is a far better solution.. if something goes wrong, private companies can be held accountable by the government and their clients/investors.. government instutions are more likely to spread fault and ultimatly no accountablity will result.. as in most government run programs today.
well personally i'd rather see my government held responsible if things go wrong than passing the blame to firms (though this is partly because i trust most firms less than the govt). your point is perfectly valid and i hadn't considered it :headbang: (nice one...). its a form of X-inefficiency in economics. it can be counteracted by setting up more than one of what are essentially not-for-profit firms, owned and operated by the govt, which are in competition with each other. this is called a quasi-market. the idea is to stimulate efficiency by introducing an element of competativeness to a monopoly environment. in practice these usually work well, but evidently not as well as a real-life competative situation (privatised firms). this is because the 'goal' that they are competing for is not profit or wealth, but some artificial reward for being efficient. why not just have privatised firms if they are gonna be more efficient? because thats what we have now, yet they aren't that efficient and nobody uses PT with the current system.

the simple answer to the practical problem is to have taxes slightly higher than costs, so that over a period of time (say 3 years) enough extra cash is brought in to cover continued renivation and rejuvination over that time period.

I think that is an idea which makes an increadable ammount of sense. It would force those who dont use public transport into paying hence encouraging them to use public transport, thus lowering the numbers of cars on our streets.

Wait... country people have to pay extra for services the're not gonna use? Seems a little unfair...

Yeah, to my mind, his idea sucks. State-run public transport is an injustice (not everybody uses it, not everybody should pay for it).

I think that is an idea which makes an increadable ammount of sense. It would force those who dont use public transport into paying hence encouraging them to use public transport, thus lowering the numbers of cars on our streets.
exactly.

Yeah, to my mind, his idea sucks. State-run public transport is an injustice (not everybody uses it, not everybody should pay for it).
care to say why?

It might work in Britain, I really don't know the demographics there too well, but I can say that it wouldn't work in the states. Simply because of size, and the large suburban population, and incredibly spread out nature of the suburbs.

Plus, the fact that the US has it's busses and other public transport run by individual cities, and they do a good job of running these things.

It might work in Britain, I really don't know the demographics there too well, but I can say that it wouldn't work in the states. Simply because of size, and the large suburban population, and incredibly spread out nature of the suburbs.

Plus, the fact that the US has it's busses and other public transport run by individual cities, and they do a good job of running these things.
well the backstory for the UK is that the busses and trains were once nationalised and run inefficiently. they were both, seperatley, privatised into regional firms (except the busses which i think are run mostly by local authorities) under 10 years ago but prices have risen higher than the rate of inflation, while service has not improved in most areas, and in many PT is worse. in the UK it would certainly be possible to have a national-level PT authority because our country is so very very tiny ;)

not everybody uses it, not everybody should pay for it

I think this is one of the fundamental attitudes which divides people on this site. Those who want gov/society to play a large role in running a country and those who prefer it limited. Personally, I much prefer a more socialist environment.

Which is why I agree with the concept of a public transport network. But there are teething problems. I think the price of running a comprehensive system has been underestimated... trains and buses are highly expensive. Governement agencies also have a habit, as said, of not being as efficient as private ones.

That said, where I come from, Luxembourg, we have an excellent bus/train system. Granted, the governement there has money to burn. It's largely free and very pleasant, ubiquous and prompt. It is run by the government. I'm not sure how they make it so good, but it's a proof of concept.

The idea of subsidising Public Transport by charging cars users is not new. London uses it very clearly, with any inner-city driver having to pay for PT development.

I reckon we need a far more bold approach. Either a car replacement (personal public transport, not unfeasible these days) or rebuilding our conurbanisation with transport at heart. Current cities are not built with any form of planning, which is what kills them. Then again, I imagine such a tactic would not go well with the citizenry.

care to say why?

I already did. Morally, I think it's unacceptable for one person to be forced to pay for another person's luxuries.

Private buses and trains work just fine, people pay for what they use, and they're not being forced out of any money. Also, the more competitive the market, the more competitive the price.

I'm one of those crazy libertarians who thinks that the government should control public transit. However, I'm not an idiot about it. Charge the people who use it. Taxes aren't the only way that the government can make money.

I already did. Morally, I think it's unacceptable for one person to be forced to pay for another person's luxuries.
so that is your opinion then, ok. (sorry if i missed it earlier - i'm kinda distracted with pizza atm :) )
I would argue that transport is not a luxury - it is a necessity.

Private buses and trains work just fine, people pay for what they use, and they're not being forced out of any money.
well that is an accurate description of what happens under private ownership of services. however, the question is whether this is in fact the best way of running the system. how do you define best? evidently you define best as what is best for the individual in the short term. i'm defining a 'best' based on societies' long-term best interests. there will never be a reduction in the amount individuals use cars and fossil fuels unless there is a viable alternative. this can either be the next generation of (renewable) fuels such as hydrogen-cell, or public transport. next gen fuels are not going to be widely implimented anytime soon, and there is little time left to begin reducing the effect of the pollution caused by there being so many cars on the road. a public transport system like the one i described would provide such an alternative to ween people away from their cars (while making running a car an undesirable prospect), but it will take time. hence the long-term 'best for society' approach.

Also, the more competitive the market, the more competitive the price.
this is not true. the government may, and does, subsidise goods and services - allowing the price of those G&S to drop below market equilibrium price level. a system like this could be implimented in my suggested plan - meaning that it would be cheaper than a market run operation (which it should be anyway without taking money from elsewhere in the budget, as the taxes cover costs (and a bit) while firms, however competative, can be assumed to be profit maximisers).

I think this is one of the fundamental attitudes which divides people on this site. Those who want gov/society to play a large role in running a country and those who prefer it limited. Personally, I much prefer a more socialist environment.

Which is why I agree with the concept of a public transport network. But there are teething problems. I think the price of running a comprehensive system has been underestimated... trains and buses are highly expensive. Governement agencies also have a habit, as said, of not being as efficient as private ones.

That said, where I come from, Luxembourg, we have an excellent bus/train system. Granted, the governement there has money to burn. It's largely free and very pleasant, ubiquous and prompt. It is run by the government. I'm not sure how they make it so good, but it's a proof of concept.

The idea of subsidising Public Transport by charging cars users is not new. London uses it very clearly, with any inner-city driver having to pay for PT development.

I reckon we need a far more bold approach. Either a car replacement (personal public transport, not unfeasible these days) or rebuilding our conurbanisation with transport at heart. Current cities are not built with any form of planning, which is what kills them. Then again, I imagine such a tactic would not go well with the citizenry.
thats interesting... while the idea originally came from a friend, what kept me thinking about it was a trip to Zurich in Switzerland. the public transport system there is simply brilliant compared to the british system - modern, quiet, spacious and on-time trains & busses for a very very low price. i didn't see loads of different bus/train operator firms' logos on the sides of trains so i figured there its either run as a monopoly (highly unlikely) or a nationalised industry.
i agree with your point about constructing developing areas with good transport links in mind - i'm sure in america this is already done (the car is king i believe is the phrase) but here in europe transport is a mess. a good transport infrastructure is the backbone of any economy, in my view. the perfect (if slightly zany) solution for the contruction of cities' transport infrastructures in the future would be to put all roads in tunnels under where the streets are (especially in inner city areas) and have pedestrian/PT/cycle only areas on the surface. not only might this save room, but it would make a very pleasant environment (im sure quite unlike what you imagined when you said a scheme of putting travel links first would "...not go well with the citizenry". unfortunatley this would be incredibly expensive :( ...but possible. just because something is unlikely doesnt mean its not desirable.

It really depends on the style and goals of the government. I personally do not think the government should choose to globally spend my money on a service I may or may not use. If I choose to use public transportation instead of private, I can very easily pay the nominal fee. That way, only those people using the service cover the costs of operating it.
ah but that's not the point. its not a 'lets use public transportation for the hell of it' idea, the scheme has a clear purpose to reduce the number of cars on the road. this sort of arguement is irrelavent to the longer-term plan as it is the goal of the plan to provide such an alternative to private transportation that it becomes the normal way of travelling - thus removing this type of arguement. i hope im getting my ideas accross ok...

The only people that would benefit from a free service, managed with tax dollars, are those that are unable to afford it normally. If you can’t afford a basic necessity you should not receive a globally subsidized “free ride.” Instead you should be able to seek assistance from charitable organizations.
everyone - society - would benefit in the long term. this is as much an environmental policy as anything else. everyone will benefit from a healthier and more sustainable environment. everyone will benefit as it is free for all. yes, ok, people who previously could not afford to travel will be able to - but who are we to deny them the necessity of travel anyway?

Use a service, pay for a service. Don’t use a service and you don’t have to pay for it.
again this is the fundamental point - in time, in the long term - when the true benefit to society can be realised - public transport will be the normal mode of transport. cars and fossil fuels will be most expensive to maintain (except in the country if necessary) and thus there will be a huge disincentive to use private transport. while at the same time there will be incentives to use public transportation (it being free & easy to use one, the high quality of the service another). thus people, in time, will not be paying for a service they don't use because hardly anyone won't use the service. ie everyone will use it so everyone will pay for it. those who genuinely do not use the service, or lack the capability to - like those countryfolk - won't have to pay.

If you are unable to earn an income, receive assistance from people willing to assist you. Don’t force every member of society to pay for those that are unable to manage their own lives but certainly encourage people to voluntarily donate to worthy causes.
there is more help needed out there than charitable causes can actually do anything about - largely because people simply do not donate enough. however this is a moot point because our opinions differ on a fundamental level over this... we'll have to agree to disagree i think :fluffle:

I would argue that transport is not a luxury - it is a necessity.


I don't think people should be forced to pay for the necessities of others either.


well that is an accurate description of what happens under private ownership of services. however, the question is whether this is in fact the best way of running the system. how do you define best? evidently you define best as what is best for the individual in the short term. i'm defining a 'best' based on societies' long-term best interests. there will never be a reduction in the amount individuals use cars and fossil fuels unless there is a viable alternative. this can either be the next generation of (renewable) fuels such as hydrogen-cell, or public transport. next gen fuels are not going to be widely implimented anytime soon, and there is little time left to begin reducing the effect of the pollution caused by there being so many cars on the road. a public transport system like the one i described would provide such an alternative to ween people away from their cars (while making running a car an undesirable prospect), but it will take time. hence the long-term 'best for society' approach.


I acknowledge your point of view. And yes, I am interested in the benefits of the individual and not of society. I agree that the environment is a serious concern, but I think that enough awareness exists at present for consumers to choose products which are more friendly towards the environment.

As for the large number who don't at the moment, I think that as the problem becomes more acute, so the public's level of awareness will expand and balance it. If people start to feel the effects of pollution to a great extent in their own lives, they will feel compelled to become more environmentally friendly, not through some alturistic government mandate, but through their own self-interest.


this is not true. the government may, and does, subsidise goods and services - allowing the price of those G&S to drop below market equilibrium price level. a system like this could be implimented in my suggested plan - meaning that it would be cheaper than a market run operation (which it should be anyway without taking money from elsewhere in the budget, as the taxes cover costs (and a bit) while firms, however competative, can be assumed to be profit maximisers).

Subsidisation requires further tax. Tax diminishes business and wealth further.

I agree that profit maximization is the primary goal for most private sector competitors, which is precisely the reason the private sector runs more smoothly. Profit is maximized by cutting waste and providing good service.

Government has no motive to do either of these, and if a state-run enterprise starts to fail, instead of reducing waste it will simply pour in more money to counter its loss. This money is taken from taxpayers.

I don't think people should be forced to pay for the necessities of others either.
They currently have to pay for this necessity. Sure my proposal isnt any better in that one still has to pay, but this is a moot point (again).

I acknowledge your point of view. And yes, I am interested in the benefits of the individual and not of society. I agree that the environment is a serious concern, but I think that enough awareness exists at present for consumers to choose products which are more friendly towards the environment.
As for the large number who don't at the moment, I think that as the problem becomes more acute, so the public's level of awareness will expand and balance it. If people start to feel the effects of pollution to a great extent in their own lives, they will feel compelled to become more environmentally friendly, not through some alturistic government mandate, but through their own self-interest.
i dont think there are enough products out there at the moment, and that we, as a whole, need to act on this issue sooner rather than later. in my view it will take too long for the consumers to change thier preferences, and for the market to respond - by instigating a plan, such as mine, to effectively begin to lower our pollutant levels now is almost a pre-emptive strike. i believe by the time people realise what is happening (or begin to care - there is plenty of hype about looming environmental disasters) it will be too late. on an environmental scale, mistakes and oversights are not to be taken lightly and cannot be undone - if we fuck up our environment there's not much we can do about it except in the very-long-term. i am not an environmentalist nut or eco-warrior btw, but have finally become concerned - rationally and not (i hope) from panick from the recent hype.



Subsidisation requires further tax. Tax diminishes business and wealth further.
true, the money has to come from somewhere. this is an economic point that isn't particularily relavent to the PT ideas of discussion.
besides we have this difference in focus. i don't care about the short run or any one individual's well being (to an extent), but instead for the long run outcome that's best for society.
also, the question of whether the benefit would be greater by intervening in the market and subsidising a frim using extra tax money, or to leave the market alone and have higher prices. there is no way of saying which one is better without a cost/benefit analysis case-by-case.

I agree that profit maximization is the primary goal for most private sector competitors, which is precisely the reason the private sector runs more smoothly. Profit is maximized by cutting waste and providing good service.yes. another economic truth. however, we currently have out PT systems run by private, profit-maximising firms, and the quality of service has arguably declined since privatisation, while prices have also risen. it doesn't work. well, obviously sometimes it does (i'm also not particularily anit-capitalism or anything) but not for the public transportation system.


Government has no motive to do either of these, and if a state-run enterprise starts to fail, instead of reducing waste it will simply pour in more money to counter its loss. This money is taken from taxpayers.the idea of a quasi-market is to run the government-owned firm as a commercial venture, hiring in real business-world managers - not just civil servants - to help create efficiency. it is often the case that these managers are given targets for efficiency or quality of service which, if achieved, earns them a tidy bonus or similar. in this way, the same incentives of a private firm exist in the public sector.

I use public transport quite heavily, but I still don't think it would be fair to levy extra taxes to give free public transport. It's not fair that people who don't use it would still have to pay more for it.

That said, I am in favour of nationalised public transport. Mainly because Britain has shown us all that privatised public transport does not work in reality.

I use public transport quite heavily, but I still don't think it would be fair to levy extra taxes to give free public transport. It's not fair that people who don't use it would still have to pay more for it.

ugh... gonna have to say it again... (sorry Swimmingpool dont mean to bitch ;) ) my idea is a long term solution. in the short run it will be problematic and a pain in the arse, but this is to encourage people to use PT and discourage them from using the car. once the change is complete (or further down the line at least) then 'people who don't use it will have to pay for it' problem won't exist anymore as everyone will use PT, and rely on private transport only when absolutely necessary. its a radical long term solution & i still think it can work, dispite the critisism (not that i can spell it :cool: )

That said, I am in favour of nationalised public transport. Mainly because Britain has shown us all that privatised public transport does not work in reality.
yay thats more like it :)

ugh... gonna have to say it again... (sorry Swimmingpool dont mean to bitch ;) ) my idea is a long term solution. in the short run it will be problematic and a pain in the arse, but this is to encourage people to use PT and discourage them from using the car. once the change is complete (or further down the line at least) then 'people who don't use it will have to pay for it' problem won't exist anymore as everyone will use PT, and rely on private transport only when absolutely necessary. its a radical long term solution & i still think it can work, dispite the critisism (not that i can spell it :cool: )


yay thats more like it :)
Actually I agree with this, but the taxes would have to be raised very gradually I think.


....yeah, damn Thatcherites.

Actually I agree with this, but the taxes would have to be raised very gradually I think.
that is probably a very good practical point. people wouldn't stand for the system changing overnight.


....yeah, damn Thatcherites.
:mad: grr :mad: ;)

There are better way to discourage people from using cars. And even if everybody uses public transportation, different people will use it in different amounts.

If this idea was solely to get people not to use cars I would be dead against it then, this is then nothing more then a back door method to address polution and would only be side scirting the issue that the government needs to invest in alternate fuel methods and should be pushing toward hydrogen technology