![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
It annoys me when people talk about “free public transport”. It’s not free, someone is still paying for it. The taxpayer/ratepayer.
“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996
Maybe those in Devonport can consider it a wash-up for the expensive taxi service AT ran in their area at a massive subsidy.
Ge0rge:
They're not part of the public transport network, and don't receive government funding.
Wait and see , At the moment we are pretty much flying blind on a press release, this is all being made up as we go along,
So whether these ferries are included will be a political call.. I'm guessing they will eventually get in... but its a decision the Beehive needs to make
Premium fuel (98) down to $3.319 from $3.609 at my local.
Nearest discount operator (waitomo) is down from $3.11 to $2.999 (95)
With regards to the calls for free (i.e. 100% subsidized) public transport, overseas examples show this is a bad idea. Making it very cheap gives better outcomes.
Ge0rge:
They're not part of the public transport network, and don't receive government funding.
That's a long article to basically say, we don't know.
"But it is unclear whether this includes the Waiheke Island and Devonport ferry services, or the Wellington Cable Car."
Stuff like the Scheduled ferries (Waiheke, Great barrier, Opua, Rangatoto, wellington to picton etc), intercity buses / trains & domestic flight's absolutely meet the definition of public transport. If the service is council funded has no bearing on if it is public transport
So if you take the government press release at face value "half price public transport" would include all of that stuff.
But it does seem unlikely. The government paying half of all domestic airfares for three months would be very expensive, encourage more emissions, and would disproportional benefit those that are well above the poverty line. Subsidizing tourism oriented (and car ferry) services would not be seen to be encouraging an alternative to petrol use in private cars, so seem unlikely.
Long distance bus services are generally included in council funding, but along with rail services like the Capital Connection, would be great candidates to subsidies, to reduce overall petrol consumption.
Dingbatt:
It annoys me when people talk about “free public transport”. It’s not free, someone is still paying for it. The taxpayer/ratepayer.
I'm not sure if this was directed at my comment or not, but I'll expand on it a bit.
I meant free for the user. Of course someone is still paying for it, as with all infrastructure. We do, after all, live in a society. However, I'm fairly certain that getting people out of single-occupant cars and into any sort of mass transit is both cheaper and more effective than building more roads (see: induced demand) in terms of making the driving experience better for those who remain in said single-occupant cars for whatever reason.
Dingbatt:
It annoys me when people talk about “free public transport”. It’s not free, someone is still paying for it. The taxpayer/ratepayer.
How is this any different from toll free highways and motorways. We have an expressway from Auckland to Hamilton that has cost 10s of billions of dollars that is "free" to use.
We have free healthcare, a free fire service, a free policing service as these are public goods. Nobody is saying that these things don't cost anything. Everybody realises that they come out of taxes but most people are okay with this.
I do not agree with "free" public transport for everyone, but heavily subsidised public transport and free transport for certain sectors (children/benefit/means tested super) is a public good. One that seems to trigger certain people, esp those that wouldn't consider using public transport themselves.
Free in this instance has always meant at point of service.
blackjack17:
I do not agree with "free" public transport for everyone, but heavily subsidised public transport and free transport for certain sectors (children/benefit/means tested super) is a public good. One that seems to trigger certain people, esp those that would consider using public transport themselves.
The problem with this is as soon as you have government administering anything the costs of doing that often outweigh the savings/revenue you have from all those people who would end up paying if they ever did use the service...
mkissin:
I'm not sure if this was directed at my comment or not, but I'll expand on it a bit.
I meant free for the user. Of course someone is still paying for it, as with all infrastructure. We do, after all, live in a society. However, I'm fairly certain that getting people out of single-occupant cars and into any sort of mass transit is both cheaper and more effective than building more roads (see: induced demand) in terms of making the driving experience better for those who remain in said single-occupant cars for whatever reason.
Not directed at you.
It was a general comment because the money doesn’t even come from the government as they have either got it from taxpayers, or borrowed it (requiring payback by…….the taxpayer).
“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996
blackjack17:
Dingbatt:
It annoys me when people talk about “free public transport”. It’s not free, someone is still paying for it. The taxpayer/ratepayer.
How is this any different from toll free highways and motorways. We have an expressway from Auckland to Hamilton that has cost 10s of billions of dollars that is "free" to use.
Because the fuel excise and RUCs have been collected to pay for those.
“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996
Geektastic: The government has reduced road user charges by 25c per litre according to the MSM.
I pay them per km not per litre. Has that also changed in cost?
That's a work in progress to figure out and calculate how they will achieve an "equivalent" reduction.
I thought most people with diesels disable the odo anyhow
Geektastic: The government has reduced road user charges by 25c per litre according to the MSM.
I pay them per km not per litre. Has that also changed in cost?
The bolded bit is all you need to know.
Glad the government was on to it so quickly and put it in place for 3 months as oil dipped to below $US100/bbl overnight.
“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996
RobDickinson:
I thought most people with diesels disable the odo anyhow
You thought wrong - Good luck doing that with a modern diesel vehicle.
RobDickinson:
I thought most people with diesels disable the odo anyhow
I suspect a small handful (relative to total diesel ownership) of people will actively dodge paying their fair share of RUC's because they selfishly expect the world to revolve around them having no consequences for their actions. Most of us pay them as we need to because we understand how everyone contributes to a functioning society.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |