Alleviating Rural Poverty Act of 2015

[bore]

I'm not sure how this bill is impractical. I can see how it would be if it sort of required by law a bus service to every town with more than 500 people or something, but it doesn't do that at all.

[Blair]

I'm not sure how this bill is impractical. I can see how it would be if it sort of required by law a bus service to every town with more than 500 people or something, but it doesn't do that at all.

It's impractical because the Senator is opposed to it

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So we'll be making this already-impractical program even more cost inefficient?

Yes that's my exact plan. I'm proposing environmental legislation just to make this bill even worse

The President said that this is a seed program of sorts. He used the word "kickstart". The inclusion of such a provision would increased the cost of the equipment meaning that the already fraction percentage of rural areas being served, would thus be even worse.


That said, I do support the rest of the amendment though unless the grant structure has issues that I am not thinking of right now.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I agree with the President, we're not calling for buses from sparsely located frontier towns in Texas to drive up to Montana. We're simply trying to support rural bus services, which helps the most vulnerable in our society, helps drive down CO2 emissions and helps economic investment

I never said anything about driving from Texas to Montana. I meant driving from one county to another in Texas or even within some counties themselves. There are counties in Texas with just a few hundred people, or maybe thousand.

[Cranberry]

I support the amendment, though we will still need to get Section 1 repealed.

[Talleyrand]

No one supports giving public transportation vouchers to those who do not own vehicles?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

No one supports giving public transportation vouchers to those who do not own vehicles?

Vouchers for single trips seems a little labour-intensive.

[TNF]

No one supports giving public transportation vouchers to those who do not own vehicles?

I certainly do.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

And I would say the point here is that there really is no good public transportation available in rural areas. I argue that it doesn't exist for a reason, but most people seem to disagree with me. I'd be interested to hear what the Vice President has to say actually, because I remember this issue coming up in the past.

But hell, I think vouchers for taxis would be more financially viable than this plan. But again, no one seems to be up for that. Instead we have senators wanting to spread the already limited funds even thinner on greening up buses... when all our car-less countryfolk really care about is getting from here to there. Alleviating those concerns is supposed to be the point of this bill. But now it's getting messy and inefficient. Let's set our minds to one goal and get it done.

[Blair]

And I would say the point here is that there really is no good public transportation available in rural areas. I argue that it doesn't exist for a reason, but most people seem to disagree with me. I'd be interested to hear what the Vice President has to say actually, because I remember this issue coming up in the past.

But hell, I think vouchers for taxis would be more financially viable than this plan. But again, no one seems to be up for that. Instead we have senators wanting to spread the already limited funds even thinner on greening up buses... when all our car-less countryfolk really care about is getting from here to there. Alleviating those concerns is supposed to be the point of this bill. But now it's getting messy and inefficient. Let's set our minds to one goal and get it done.

Yes, climate change is a serious issue for the entire nation. Small steps like this actually matter-if you don't want to provide funding for green buses then I hope you'll support Cap and Trade, massive reduction in CO2 emissions, Talleyrands upcoming biodiversity act along with a limit on arctic drilling that I want to propose. I'm not going to apologize for trying to reduce our carbon emissions.

 'Country folk?' Don't insult the fine rural citizens of Atlasia by implying they don't care about climate change

[Talleyrand]

Keep in mind the voucher would just be a discounted price for public transportation. Maybe 15% off?

[bore]

The reason I proposed this bill was precisely because there often is no good public transportation in rural areas. But just because there is not currently any doesn't mean that's it's impossible. After all, there are different levels of profitability and loss. A for profit bus company won't even run a service that consistently just breaks even, let alone one that makes a small loss, and it might even decide that one which makes a small profit is too risky. The state, can, however, take a wider view here, because public transport has other benefits which aren't simply a matter of making money and can offset the subsidy, so to speak. For instance, public transport means the poor who can't afford a car aren't confined to within walking distance of their house. It gives the elderly who are no longer able to drive far more ability, and, of course, one bus journey is equal to like 30 car journeys, so it's good for the environment.

I'm happy to concede that this subsidy would go to marginally unprofitable routes (otherwise, frankly, what would be the point?) but even if that would be a net loss of income, it would be still be a positive thing overall.

The only way I would agree with Hagrid is if we were subsiding massively loss making routes, but, the fact that basically everywhere in say, the highlands, has a bus service of some sort, which shows it's not that inefficient, and that, as yankee points out, the US is a big country means we won't struggle to find marginally profitable routes to fund.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Noooooo!!!

I was thinking of angry farmers marching on Nyman, but you guys want to destroy my plans with your alleviating rural poverty

[HagridOfTheDeep]

And I would say the point here is that there really is no good public transportation available in rural areas. I argue that it doesn't exist for a reason, but most people seem to disagree with me. I'd be interested to hear what the Vice President has to say actually, because I remember this issue coming up in the past.

But hell, I think vouchers for taxis would be more financially viable than this plan. But again, no one seems to be up for that. Instead we have senators wanting to spread the already limited funds even thinner on greening up buses... when all our car-less countryfolk really care about is getting from here to there. Alleviating those concerns is supposed to be the point of this bill. But now it's getting messy and inefficient. Let's set our minds to one goal and get it done.

Yes, climate change is a serious issue for the entire nation. Small steps like this actually matter-if you don't want to provide funding for green buses then I hope you'll support Cap and Trade, massive reduction in CO2 emissions, Talleyrands upcoming biodiversity act along with a limit on arctic drilling that I want to propose. I'm not going to apologize for trying to reduce our carbon emissions.

 'Country folk?' Don't insult the fine rural citizens of Atlasia by implying they don't care about climate change

You do no one a service by continuing to deliberately miss the point and misconstrue my intentions. This bill is not positioned to reduce GHGs, even in its amended form.

And "countryfolk" is not an insult.

Frankly, you'd do better to show a bit of goodwill. Labor ain't gonna have the numbers it has forever.

As for your argument Mr. President, I understand the interests the state has in making public transportation happen, and I understand that operating at a marginal loss could still be worthwhile. The thing is, public transportation like what we're talking about never just runs at a marginal loss (at least not very often). Even in our cities, where we have the density to support public transportation, the farebox recovery rate, at some places, is less than 20%. So let's make no mistake about the profitability issue: It's more than a marginal loss. And let's also make no mistake about my position: I usually support public transportation anyway. I believe in its power to connect people to opportunities and help create more dynamic, walkable landscapes.

But it won't work in rural areas. The walkability and dynamic streetscape benefit is nil because of the sparse population. Connecting people to opportunities could happen, but at a huge cost that makes it such that there are probably better ways to do it than by bus. I mean, if Los Angeles only recovers 50% of its costs from passengers, I don't see how a place with more sprawl, lower density, and less people could get anywhere near that.

And you talk about the government's interest in funding projects like this, even at a loss. I agree. But these projects are usually financed by the regions and municipalities/counties. They have revenue streams. They find a way to make transit work. If these rural areas don't ready have working transit, it means busses would have to operate there at huge losses... Losses that other levels of government have decided aren't acceptable. Why should the federal government take this task on when a taxi grant could be cheaper and work just as well for the people who need it, if not better?

Because "muh transit" and "muh enviromets."

But now I hate the world because I think it's even worse to put out for more expensive green technologies when already these limited funds will hardly be able to scratch the surface in terms of connecting people to opportunities with an efficient public transit scheme. Hagrid's an evil climate change denier1!!1!

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This has been adopted.

[Blair]

And I would say the point here is that there really is no good public transportation available in rural areas. I argue that it doesn't exist for a reason, but most people seem to disagree with me. I'd be interested to hear what the Vice President has to say actually, because I remember this issue coming up in the past.

But hell, I think vouchers for taxis would be more financially viable than this plan. But again, no one seems to be up for that. Instead we have senators wanting to spread the already limited funds even thinner on greening up buses... when all our car-less countryfolk really care about is getting from here to there. Alleviating those concerns is supposed to be the point of this bill. But now it's getting messy and inefficient. Let's set our minds to one goal and get it done.

Yes, climate change is a serious issue for the entire nation. Small steps like this actually matter-if you don't want to provide funding for green buses then I hope you'll support Cap and Trade, massive reduction in CO2 emissions, Talleyrands upcoming biodiversity act along with a limit on arctic drilling that I want to propose. I'm not going to apologize for trying to reduce our carbon emissions.

 'Country folk?' Don't insult the fine rural citizens of Atlasia by implying they don't care about climate change

You do no one a service by continuing to deliberately miss the point and misconstrue my intentions. This bill is not positioned to reduce GHGs, even in its amended form.

And "countryfolk" is not an insult.

Frankly, you'd do better to show a bit of goodwill. Labor ain't gonna have the numbers it has forever.

As for your argument Mr. President, I understand the interests the state has in making public transportation happen, and I understand that operating at a marginal loss could still be worthwhile. The thing is, public transportation like what we're talking about never just runs at a marginal loss (at least not very often). Even in our cities, where we have the density to support public transportation, the farebox recovery rate, at some places, is less than 20%. So let's make no mistake about the profitability issue: It's more than a marginal loss. And let's also make no mistake about my position: I usually support public transportation anyway. I believe in its power to connect people to opportunities and help create more dynamic, walkable landscapes.

But it won't work in rural areas. The walkability and dynamic streetscape benefit is nil because of the sparse population. Connecting people to opportunities could happen, but at a huge cost that makes it such that there are probably better ways to do it than by bus. I mean, if Los Angeles only recovers 50% of its costs from passengers, I don't see how a place with more sprawl, lower density, and less people could get anywhere near that.

And you talk about the government's interest in funding projects like this, even at a loss. I agree. But these projects are usually financed by the regions and municipalities/counties. They have revenue streams. They find a way to make transit work. If these rural areas don't ready have working transit, it means busses would have to operate there at huge losses... Losses that other levels of government have decided aren't acceptable. Why should the federal government take this task on when a taxi grant could be cheaper and work just as well for the people who need it, if not better?

Because "muh transit" and "muh enviromets."

But now I hate the world because I think it's even worse to put out for more expensive green technologies when already these limited funds will hardly be able to scratch the surface in terms of connecting people to opportunities with an efficient public transit scheme. Hagrid's an evil climate change denier1!!1!

I'm not worried how many seats labor have-even if we had one I'd still propose efforts to clean up the environment

I don't know where you're getting the numbers from regarding green transport. There's clear evidence that electric buses (something I proposed) are cheaper to run and also emit less CO2. I'd be happy to take out Hydrogen buses, and make it a strict electric scheme. Look at this date here, it shows that electric buses are the way forward...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So long as we accept a significant degree of state subsidy and so long as we accept that theoretical commercial viability is not the be all and end all of everything, then there is no reason why you can't have a bus that travels twice a day between two large towns and which reaches many smaller places along its route. And that as the barest of bare minimums.

[TNF]

I strongly support this bill. If the urbanites among us would rather flip their noses up at rural people who often have no other means of transportation besides an automobile (which they likewise seem to want us to stop using as-is) on account of the miniscule cost this would amount to, let me remind them that they (that is, our faux deficit hawks) have voted time and time again for hundreds of millions of dollars in military spending that is, by any measure, totally unnecessary.

[bore]

In response to hagrid's point, I guess I just don't see why the low farebox recovery rate in urban areas (although we should be careful here, because they're pretty profitable in europe and asia) means, necessarily, that they will be even worse for rural areas. While it's true that there are more potential users in cities there are also far far more buses so more drivers are employed, and there is also more competition. I see no reason why the number of empty seats on an average bus would be less in rural areas than in cities, and that is important.

I suppose you could argue that it's the amount of fuel needed when compared to the city that makes it uneconomic but the existence of so many relatively cheap intercity buses suggests that fuel isn't the main cost involved.

[Cranberry]

I can only echo the sentiments stated by Senator TNF. Rural bus service can be a vital service for rural communities, and as such, it is in my opinion imperative for the Senate to support and enhance these services to our rural communities. As Al said, not everything needs to be regarded just in the eyes of, I quote, "theoretical commercial viability". If we started to do so, we would have to end up reviewing a significant part of our expenditures, and the Senate's mdoe of operation in general.

[windjammer]

I totally agree with TNF and Cranberry.

I live in a rural area, and all I can say is that transportation is a mess. If you have no car, your life is deeply difficult. And no need to remind everyone that this car service would deeply help rural folks to get a job. This is often this reason why rural people can't get a job. They have no way to go to work.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I know full well the impact of not having transportion an what it can me if you are in a rural area. We actually do/did have transportion of sorts in the country we moved out of back in January, but it didn't run all hours of the day obviously and it was free if you were on food stamps or similar gov't assistance. However, it was of very little use because the types of jobs in question were hardly the eight to five ones that such service served and it didn't run after a certain time at night.

No one doubts that the routes would be operating at a loss of some kind, hence the purpose behind gov't intervention in this case. However, I would say though that the marginal benefit for the investment should count for something, because there are other places that also assist with rural poverty that could be much more effective potentially and hence why we should still be concerned about the number of people served and the percentage that the ticket sales generate towards the total cost for that reason if no other.

Broadband comes to mind for instance, as does career/technical education, education in general etc. Transportation is not unimportant, nor a secondary concern even, but the multitude of important areas regarding rural poverty, including and extending to issues of health and the related issue of environmental pollution and its impacts on health dictate the need for one to be concerned about the cost, even if operating at a loss is already a given.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And I would say the point here is that there really is no good public transportation available in rural areas. I argue that it doesn't exist for a reason, but most people seem to disagree with me. I'd be interested to hear what the Vice President has to say actually, because I remember this issue coming up in the past.

But hell, I think vouchers for taxis would be more financially viable than this plan. But again, no one seems to be up for that. Instead we have senators wanting to spread the already limited funds even thinner on greening up buses... when all our car-less countryfolk really care about is getting from here to there. Alleviating those concerns is supposed to be the point of this bill. But now it's getting messy and inefficient. Let's set our minds to one goal and get it done.

Yes, climate change is a serious issue for the entire nation. Small steps like this actually matter-if you don't want to provide funding for green buses then I hope you'll support Cap and Trade, massive reduction in CO2 emissions, Talleyrands upcoming biodiversity act along with a limit on arctic drilling that I want to propose. I'm not going to apologize for trying to reduce our carbon emissions.

 'Country folk?' Don't insult the fine rural citizens of Atlasia by implying they don't care about climate change

You do no one a service by continuing to deliberately miss the point and misconstrue my intentions. This bill is not positioned to reduce GHGs, even in its amended form.

And "countryfolk" is not an insult.

Frankly, you'd do better to show a bit of goodwill. Labor ain't gonna have the numbers it has forever.

As for your argument Mr. President, I understand the interests the state has in making public transportation happen, and I understand that operating at a marginal loss could still be worthwhile. The thing is, public transportation like what we're talking about never just runs at a marginal loss (at least not very often). Even in our cities, where we have the density to support public transportation, the farebox recovery rate, at some places, is less than 20%. So let's make no mistake about the profitability issue: It's more than a marginal loss. And let's also make no mistake about my position: I usually support public transportation anyway. I believe in its power to connect people to opportunities and help create more dynamic, walkable landscapes.

But it won't work in rural areas. The walkability and dynamic streetscape benefit is nil because of the sparse population. Connecting people to opportunities could happen, but at a huge cost that makes it such that there are probably better ways to do it than by bus. I mean, if Los Angeles only recovers 50% of its costs from passengers, I don't see how a place with more sprawl, lower density, and less people could get anywhere near that.

And you talk about the government's interest in funding projects like this, even at a loss. I agree. But these projects are usually financed by the regions and municipalities/counties. They have revenue streams. They find a way to make transit work. If these rural areas don't ready have working transit, it means busses would have to operate there at huge losses... Losses that other levels of government have decided aren't acceptable. Why should the federal government take this task on when a taxi grant could be cheaper and work just as well for the people who need it, if not better?

Because "muh transit" and "muh enviromets."

But now I hate the world because I think it's even worse to put out for more expensive green technologies when already these limited funds will hardly be able to scratch the surface in terms of connecting people to opportunities with an efficient public transit scheme. Hagrid's an evil climate change denier1!!1!

I'm not worried how many seats labor have-even if we had one I'd still propose efforts to clean up the environment

I don't know where you're getting the numbers from regarding green transport. There's clear evidence that electric buses (something I proposed) are cheaper to run and also emit less CO2. I'd be happy to take out Hydrogen buses, and make it a strict electric scheme. Look at this date here, it shows that electric buses are the way forward...

What about the supporting infrastructure? Does that include the cost of building recharging stations for these buses?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Yankee hit the nail on the head.

I'm not disputing the fact that green vehicles output less GHG emissions than regular buses and cars. I don't need a chart to tell me that.

But building the infrastructure that is required for this type of service is going to harm the environment as well. We're talking about a pretty significant investment in resources and manpower to roll out these transportation systems... and for what? A necessarily inefficient and limited system that not many people will use anyway.

People are missing the trees for the forest in this circumstance. There's nothing more I can say. We will be wasting government money.

Again, for the final time, I agree that we need to help connect people to opportunities in rural regions. Setting up a cruddy bus service is so cost inefficient and won't provide people with even half decent service or coverage. Taxi grants and a partially subsidized carpool service would give people quality service and cost the government less. But none of you are even entertaining the idea. It's like you want to waste money.

I would urge everyone to ask the vice president what he thinks. A much more respected individual than I.

[Blair]

Yankee hit the nail on the head.

I'm not disputing the fact that green vehicles output less GHG emissions than regular buses and cars. I don't need a chart to tell me that.

But building the infrastructure that is required for this type of service is going to harm the environment as well. We're talking about a pretty significant investment in resources and manpower to roll out these transportation systems... and for what? A necessarily inefficient and limited system that not many people will use anyway.

People are missing the trees for the forest in this circumstance. There's nothing more I can say. We will be wasting government money.

Again, for the final time, I agree that we need to help connect people to opportunities in rural regions. Setting up a cruddy bus service is so cost inefficient and won't provide people with even half decent service or coverage. Taxi grants and a partially subsidized carpool service would give people quality service and cost the government less. But none of you are even entertaining the idea. It's like you want to waste money.

I would urge everyone to ask the vice president what he thinks. A much more respected individual than I.

Well Senator, I'm sorry that I put evidence in to back up my point. I really don't appreciate being talked down to Senator

I wasn't even proving that they emit less-I was showing that despite your claims they're cheaper to run.

We need a greener transport system, we have the resources in the Federal Government to do that. Several of the bills we've passed have put money aside for this type of funding, we can look into a public-private link to promote growth-I can even look into what can be done in the Department of Internal Affairs to help the transition.

It's absurd to tackle global warming, whilst restrained by a emasculated fiscal conservatism that teaches that all investment is bad investment. Climate Change will likely cost us at least $20 Billion, according to the Stern Report. It's small steps such as these that make the difference, that show the public that something must be done. We need to invest in our green infrastructure at some stage you know

I'll even consider withdrawing the part about green energy if I have your support for a comprehensive green agenda?