Public transport vs private car

Scroll to see replies

Lib North

People survived without buses going to every doorstep once upon a time. If they don't live in a covered, profitable area and they need to move about then they're quite capable of getting a taxi or moving house.

Not all people are a rich as you! And in the past people lived closer to their place of work. Not any more so mobility is one of the best ways of reducing poverty, by giving the poor access to new areas.

Lib North

It's not a natural monopoly in the least, and neither is the utility market.

Yes it is why not just wikipedia natural monopoly and you will find the example of Utilities.

Lib North

*******s. Take a walk down to your local council estate.
I don't particularly want people to stop using cars.

then perhaps i should drive.
I have been to my local social housing area, and also other ones within the city and let me tell you...people in poverty cannot afford a car.

Reply 61

sandettielightvessel

Lib North

It's "profitable" because the state is propping it up? Anything could be bloody profitable by that definition!

Regrettably private companies have to make a profit. Sad, but it's fact. They won't run a bus service at a loss. The money from the PTE/Council/Government makes it profitable.

Reply 62

L i b

tux01989

Regrettably private companies have to make a profit. Sad, but it's fact. They won't run a bus service at a loss. The money from the PTE/Council/Government makes it profitable.

A private organisation is not always a company. And I think it is well established that private companies almost always deliver cheaper services than state bodies.

Meanwhile if it isn't properly profitable then it'll die. Good riddance.

ali567149

The world will not fall flat on its face from such things. In fact, it might actually help some sectors of the economy: there'd be a temptation to deliver services and thus jobs more locally, thus regenerating a lot of local communities and towns and reducing CO2 emmissions and congestion.

Yes it is why not just wikipedia natural monopoly and you will find the example of Utilities.

I don't give a toss what wikipedia says. I'm pointing out that logically the delivery of rail transport or utilities is not. Power suppliers can use the same cables and each have an interest in keeping them going. Alternatively, they could lay their own at great expense. They won't, so they will put their efforts into maintaining what already exists.

then perhaps i should drive.

Perhaps you should. Or perhaps you don't actually need to.

I have been to my local social housing area, and also other ones within the city and let me tell you...people in poverty cannot afford a car.

Well unless you live in Beirut or somewhere comparible, then I'm afraid I don't believe you. Council housing estates etc are full of cars these days.

Reply 63

sandettielightvessel

They might *have* a car, but maybe it's quicker/easier/cheaper to catch a bus into town, and only use the car when really necessary? Where I live, one bus costs £1.60 return to town, in a car that's 8 miles so, say, two litres of petrol? Amounting to about £1.80, plus a contribution towards maintenance, then parking costs (a couple of other quid), the traffic making it slower than the bus, the time taken to find a parking space, the fact all the parking is away from the things you need to get to...