Peter Hun Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 (edited) I think you're confusing Estonia with another country... Yes, I know but I couldn't be bothered to explain the 40% internal devaluation and property crash. They joined the Euro though... Here are some Latvian jokes. http://www.chrisconnollyonline.com/2009/02/72-is-partial-compendium-latvian-humor.html Like Estonia. Edited March 26, 2012 by Peter Hun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashInHand Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I have occasionally wondered what the costs of making the trains free in the UK would be. They are already heavily subsidised - so if you make them free you (1) lose the ticket revenue, and (2) save the costs of running ticket offices, barriers, inspectors, enforcement etc. I wonder what the money gap would be if you closed that lot down, and if it wouldn't just be worth the government stepping in and saying we'll hand over the extra £X billion for general convenience. Not only that but reducing road congestion would save billions. Making our businesses more economic by reducing congestion is a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 It isn't free. It is just paid for by taxation, via threats of force Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashInHand Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 It isn't free. It is just paid for by taxation, via threats of force True - free at the point of use, is the correct term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichB Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Those damned Old Estonian Public School Boys at their shameless tricks again eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 True - free at the point of use, is the correct term. In other words, you are forced to pay for it, whether you use it or not. If you refuse payment, you will be put in a cage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snafu Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 (edited) BAH someone did the most obvious joke already. Sigh. Edited March 27, 2012 by Snafu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Doesn't seem like a great idea. People will just overconsume public transport. I see the consequences of all-you-can-eat travelcards in London all the time: people flag down buses carrying 50+ people in order to travel one stop, sometimes less than 100m. Total waste of other people's time and fossil fuel energy, but such is human nature! You are getting me onto one of my pet hobby horses. Too many bus stops! Halve the number of stops easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 All the people supporting this are just displaying the usual left wing, 5 year old with a crayon level of logic. NOTHING IS FREE All this means is, instead of the people using public transport paying for public transport SOMEONE ELSE HAS TO PAY Der!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Key Stakeholder Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Downtown Portland, OR (where your Nikes come from) now has free tram transport in the central area. A big success, being run as a 'common good' by the metropolitan govt (via a not-for-profit public benefit trust corporation) funded from local puchase taxes (which have increased because of greater footfall in the downtown area since the tram was installed in 2001). Whoda thunk that the 'Merkins would go for free public transport? And make a success of it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Downtown Portland, OR (where your Nikes come from) now has free tram transport in the central area. A big success, being run as a 'common good' by the metropolitan govt (via a not-for-profit public benefit trust corporation) funded from local puchase taxes (which have increased because of greater footfall in the downtown area since the tram was installed in 2001). Whoda thunk that the 'Merkins would go for free public transport? And make a success of it? Funded by local purchase taxes. So instead of paying to get into town you pay extra tax on whatever you buy when you get there Net effect = NOT FREE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son of Taeper Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I can't see anything in the link that mentions transport at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Key Stakeholder Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Funded by local purchase taxes. So instead of paying to get into town you pay extra tax on whatever you buy when you get there Net effect = NOT FREE The metropolitan authority didn't increase tax rates to achieve this public transport project. Rather, the project increased tax take by regenerating the retail centre of Portland. The metropolitan authority funded the project by borrowing against the increment in tax take which the project would generate thru the reversal of economic decline in the downtown area. No-one is paying 'more when they get there'. Its just that more people are getting there more conveniently and quickly than they had been since the middle of the car-crazy 20th century. So, the project was funded by the economic growth it would provoke and the ongoing operation of the tram is regarded, similar to road infrastructure in urban areas, as a common good. Perhaps you advocate universal road charging too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 The metropolitan authority didn't increase tax rates to achieve this public transport project. Rather, the project increased tax take by regenerating the retail centre of Portland. The metropolitan authority funded the project by borrowing against the increment in tax take which the project would generate thru the reversal of economic decline in the downtown area. No-one is paying 'more when they get there'. Its just that more people are getting there more conveniently and quickly than they had been since the middle of the car-crazy 20th century. So, the project was funded by the economic growth it would provoke and the ongoing operation of the tram is regarded, similar to road infrastructure in urban areas, as a common good. Perhaps you advocate universal road charging too? We already have universal road charging It's called fuel excise duty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Key Stakeholder Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) We already have universal road charging It's called fuel excise duty Surprised you didn't mention "road tax". Of course FED and VED are pollution levies, not road charges. Roads are a common good, paid from the public purse. In the same way, Portland regards city centre trams as a common good.The people of Tallinn have voted to regard public transport, similarly, as a common good, in the same way that they regard free blanket WiFi coverage for residents and visitors (since 2005) as a common good. These policies reap rewards in comparative advantage for their host cities. http://citybreaths.com/post/19964841260/istallinneuropesmostinnovativecity Tallinn has been working on its technological and innovative comparative advantage over the past decade. It now houses a substantial amount of technology startups and more established companies. Ericsson has located its production and innovation on 4G technology [t]here and Skype is a renowned and successful startup from Tallinn. And now Tallinn joins Porland Oregon with free-to-use public transport, regarded as a common good. Talinn will benefit from this innovation... ...not only because of the environmental advantages and the fact that car use is becoming less attractive (which can also contribute to the liveliness of the city), but especially considering the innovative technology companies that Tallinn houses.Cities that are well-known for their clusters of innovative businesses, such as San Francisco, Portland and Amsterdam, are also known for their easy mobility. Whether it is because they are good cities for bicycling or because of the good and affordable public transport, there seems to be some kind of correlation between non car oriented cities and innovative clusters. Car-dependent petrol-addicted UK seems hopelessly old fashioned by comparison. Stuck in the middle of the car-crazy 20th century. Edited March 28, 2012 by Key Stakeholder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Surely the key benefit of doing it - and why it's worth doing it - is the reduction in associated costs... probably a 50% reduction when you factor in everything from ticket printing, banking costs, staff costs to back-office stuff like the army of people who are needed to recalculate fares each year. You should even consider the extra costs that come from things like buses stood still while people pay. The UK must have 100,000 plus people involved in that side of public transport who would no longer be needed. Without those delays you would probably need 25% less buses. Then add in the cost to the economy in terms of hours waiting to pay/buy tickets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Key Stakeholder Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) Surely the key benefit of doing it - and why it's worth doing it - is the reduction in associated costs... Nah, it's much simpler than that - it's about making Tallinn a great place to live; a "global city" competing for footloose talent to come and work in its burgeoning IT sector. Any costs associated with deciding to regard infrastructure like this as a common good and provide it free at the point of use will be more than returned in increased economic growth. US cities are increasingly taking this view too as part of the New Urbanism agenda. It's an interesting sidebar to note that Tallinn's IT predominance ("a sort of Silicon Valley on the Baltic", says the NYT) stems from the Soviet-era Institute of Cybernetics which was located there and is now part of Tallinn's University of Technology. Edited March 28, 2012 by Key Stakeholder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashInHand Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 In other words, you are forced to pay for it, whether you use it or not. Yes, tho arguably everyone will gain the benefits of reduced congestion. If you refuse payment, you will be put in a cage. Yes, tho for some taxes are a tad more voluntary than that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashedOutAndBurned Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) Excellent idea by Estonia. The rich people than run our country just don't seem to care that normal people (unless their work is paying for travel) cannot afford to use trains anymore as the prices are insane, especially if you decide to travel last minute. Worse, the buses are going the same way - the prices are no longer compatible with the tiny incomes of those using them to get to work. Privatisation of natural monopolies and basic infrastructure doesn't work and we shouldn't let neoliberal ideologues force their zany ideas onto us anymore than we'd let a Stalinist. Public transport especially should be brought back into public ownership and run on a not for profit basis, based on the realisation that it serves the entire economy. Just think how dynamic and entrepreneurial people would become if they could get around the country cheaply and easily. It would solve all sorts of problems and open up new opportunities for all. Plus, I'd sooner see the government spend its money on universally-beneficial infrastructure than pointless paper-pushing makejobs and social engineering... 'Hey, NEAT, would you like to be sent to Tesco to work for free in a chain gang or get given proper skills in building railways and a real job?' Edited March 28, 2012 by CrashedOutAndBurned Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son of Taeper Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Err, I can't see anything in the link that mentions transport at all. Everyone seems to be responding to a post about transport when there is nothing to back up the link. How about we substitute the word transport for the word sex (just to get the juices running). Think sex but type in transport. Where is the word? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Key Stakeholder Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Err, I can't see anything in the link that mentions transport at all. The Bloomberg link seems to have moved, but there's plenty breathless excitement here: http://citybreaths.com/post/19964841260/istallinneuropesmostinnovativecity and the beeb's more measured reportage here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17517106 and from inside estonia http://news.err.ee/society/e065014d-9d67-43a2-8f3a-f6cacb54cdae Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Yes, tho arguably everyone will gain the benefits of reduced congestion. How about those who rarely go into town? Why should they pay for regular commuters to have a 'free' service at their expense? Yes, tho for some taxes are a tad more voluntary than that Voluntary taxes? I think you have an oxymoron there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Surely the key benefit of doing it - and why it's worth doing it - is the reduction in associated costs... probably a 50% reduction when you factor in everything from ticket printing, banking costs, staff costs to back-office stuff like the army of people who are needed to recalculate fares each year. You should even consider the extra costs that come from things like buses stood still while people pay. The UK must have 100,000 plus people involved in that side of public transport who would no longer be needed. Without those delays you would probably need 25% less buses. Then add in the cost to the economy in terms of hours waiting to pay/buy tickets. You could only sell season tickets, if the aim was to reduce ticket issuance overheads. If you only had one season ticket card, which could only be bought online or through machines, then flashed in front of a barrier/door/driver, it's hardly complex. You also still have to calculate budgets, still have to pay wages, still have to collect taxes and so forth anyway. As the public sector is rarely considered the most streamlined and economical, I doubt the savings you suggest would be realised. Arguably, it could be less efficient and cost even more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) Excellent idea by Estonia. The rich people than run our country just don't seem to care that normal people (unless their work is paying for travel) cannot afford to use trains anymore as the prices are insane, especially if you decide to travel last minute. Worse, the buses are going the same way - the prices are no longer compatible with the tiny incomes of those using them to get to work. Privatisation of natural monopolies and basic infrastructure doesn't work and we shouldn't let neoliberal ideologues force their zany ideas onto us anymore than we'd let a Stalinist. Public transport especially should be brought back into public ownership and run on a not for profit basis, based on the realisation that it serves the entire economy. Just think how dynamic and entrepreneurial people would become if they could get around the country cheaply and easily. It would solve all sorts of problems and open up new opportunities for all. Plus, I'd sooner see the government spend its money on universally-beneficial infrastructure than pointless paper-pushing makejobs and social engineering... 'Hey, NEAT, would you like to be sent to Tesco to work for free in a chain gang or get given proper skills in building railways and a real job?' How is giving the state ownership of said monopoly a solution? They can still do a sh*t job of running it, charge too much, be unaccountable and so forth too. If you really don't want monopolies, you wouldn't want either the state, nor individuals to run them. Instead, private mutual organisations are a better model, where all of those using the service, have a say in how it is run... and I don't mean indirectly, once every 4 years either. edit: added link Edited March 28, 2012 by Traktion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Everyone seems to be responding to a post about transport when there is nothing to back up the link. How about we substitute the word transport for the word sex (just to get the juices running). Think sex but type in transport. So you're saying there's free sex in Estonia? (For the pedants, obviously I mean free at the point of delivery - you always pay for sex!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.