3 ms·

I don't disagree that life is hard when you are poor, I think you're just not giving enough credit to the resourcefulness of people. People don't just roll over

I don't disagree that life is hard when you are poor, I think you're just not giving enough credit to the resourcefulness of people. People don't just roll over and die when you don't provide everything, they find ways to resolve their issues. > If there was a private bus operator ("dollar van") serving that route, the local authority wouldn't have to subsidise it. This assumes the government isn't actively trying to shut them down because they're unlicensed and the licensing system is excessive. > Place A has a lot of unemployed people with low skills. Place B has a lot of low-skilled jobs. There's no public transport between place A and place B, so a lot of those unemployed people can't get to those jobs. Is it really so irrational for the local government to solve that problem? I think this situation with a bunch of people sitting around unemployed because they can't get a ride and then suddenly getting jobs because you add an (unprofitable, i.e. underutilized) bus route is a contrived example. I also think you would probably do better by subsidizing these people directly (e.g. through transport vouchers or just direct payments), rather than having the local government running an unprofitable route.

jdietrich 8y ago
>I don't disagree that life is hard when you are poor, I think you're just not giving enough credit to the resourcefulness of people. People don't just roll over and die when you don't provide everything, they find ways to resolve their issues. That's a really weak excuse for not helping people in need. The continued existence of unemployment, poverty, bankruptcy and suicide demonstrate that some people don't find ways to resolve their issues. >This assumes the government isn't actively trying to shut them down because they're unlicensed and the licensing system is excessive. My original comment was in the context of the UK. I have no idea what the situation in the US, but it's incredibly straightforward to legally start a bus route over here. To start a local route, the only significant administrative hurdle is a ten-page form and a £60 ($80) application fee. It's entirely feasible for a small company to open a new route with one vehicle. >I think this situation with a bunch of people sitting around unemployed because they can't get a ride and then suddenly getting jobs because you add an (unprofitable, i.e. underutilized) bus route is a contrived example. It definitely isn't. Here are some case studies to prove it: https://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/2228-transport-regeneration-deprivation.pdf https://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/file... >I also think you would probably do better by subsidizing these people directly (e.g. through transport vouchers or just direct payments), rather than having the local government running an unprofitable route. We already do that through a variety of means, but other transport options can be prohibitively expensive to support and there is a very significant administrative burden associated with means-tested benefits. Subsidising a bus route can be quite inexpensive on a per-journey basis, because the local authority only needs to cover the shortfall between fare revenue and the cost of running the service. Subsidised bus schemes can also provide broader benefits in terms of access to healthcare and social inclusion - a subsidised bus taking a low-income worker to their job may also take a young mother to a doctor's appointment, an elderly person to a social club and a disabled person to the shops.
- Eridrus 8y ago
  I had a look at your case study pdf, and I'm not really seeing it as strong support; there was a quote about lack of transport to work, followed directly by: > Obviously, Cornwall is a rural county and more likely to experience poorer levels of public transport provision. In the Walsall study, which is clearly more representative of conditions in an inner-urban area, one officer felt that it was less to do with the lack of transport provision and more to do with people’s willingness to travel outside the immediate area The next section which sites lack of links from areas of "high unemployment to key employment sites" is also talking about Cornwall again. I actually like public transport, I just think your initial comment was an exaggeration.

jdietrich 8y ago

>I don't disagree that life is hard when you are poor, I think you're just not giving enough credit to the resourcefulness of people. People don't just roll over and die when you don't provide everything, they find ways to resolve their issues. That's a really weak excuse for not helping people in need. The continued existence of unemployment, poverty, bankruptcy and suicide demonstrate that some people don't find ways to resolve their issues. >This assumes the government isn't actively trying to shut them down because they're unlicensed and the licensing system is excessive. My original comment was in the context of the UK. I have no idea what the situation in the US, but it's incredibly straightforward to legally start a bus route over here. To start a local route, the only significant administrative hurdle is a ten-page form and a £60 ($80) application fee. It's entirely feasible for a small company to open a new route with one vehicle. >I think this situation with a bunch of people sitting around unemployed because they can't get a ride and then suddenly getting jobs because you add an (unprofitable, i.e. underutilized) bus route is a contrived example. It definitely isn't. Here are some case studies to prove it: https://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/2228-transport-regeneration-deprivation.pdf https://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/file... >I also think you would probably do better by subsidizing these people directly (e.g. through transport vouchers or just direct payments), rather than having the local government running an unprofitable route. We already do that through a variety of means, but other transport options can be prohibitively expensive to support and there is a very significant administrative burden associated with means-tested benefits. Subsidising a bus route can be quite inexpensive on a per-journey basis, because the local authority only needs to cover the shortfall between fare revenue and the cost of running the service. Subsidised bus schemes can also provide broader benefits in terms of access to healthcare and social inclusion - a subsidised bus taking a low-income worker to their job may also take a young mother to a doctor's appointment, an elderly person to a social club and a disabled person to the shops.

Eridrus 8y ago
I had a look at your case study pdf, and I'm not really seeing it as strong support; there was a quote about lack of transport to work, followed directly by: > Obviously, Cornwall is a rural county and more likely to experience poorer levels of public transport provision. In the Walsall study, which is clearly more representative of conditions in an inner-urban area, one officer felt that it was less to do with the lack of transport provision and more to do with people’s willingness to travel outside the immediate area The next section which sites lack of links from areas of "high unemployment to key employment sites" is also talking about Cornwall again. I actually like public transport, I just think your initial comment was an exaggeration.