Alleviating Rural Poverty Act of 2015

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I pretty much agree that this Bill has been trying to do too much, we need to figure out what it's primary purpose is, and stick with it.

I'm sorry, I've been tied up and will have something Friday.

[Blair]

In line with Yankee's comments, I'd be happy if the President approves to make this a comprehensive bill on rural poverty. Food stamps, transport, farm diversification, HIV, education and other issues could be included, and I think it would be a good thing for the senate to do because this bill seems to have died slightly 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

1. Subsidies to enable private transport companies if they extend existing routes up to 100 miles.

2. A payment will be provided to support existing community transport programs to extend and expand the routes and coverage.

3. A carpool program will be created to enable vulnerable people access to larger population centres - Individuals will be able to apply to the Federal Department of Internal Affairs to be a service provider with a base payment provided on a per-passenger/per mile basis.

[Talleyrand]

I'm fine with parts 2 and 3, but my issue with part 1 is I don't see how that'll necessarily reduce costs for  travelers in rural areas. In addition, they could just get around the law by extending existing routes 100 miles by following a snaking pattern through a big metropolitan area or such.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm fine with parts 2 and 3, but my issue with part 1 is I don't see how that'll necessarily reduce costs for  travelers in rural areas. In addition, they could just get around the law by extending existing routes 100 miles by following a snaking pattern through a big metropolitan area or such.

I don't think you can guarantee 100% what would be happen in any of these circumstances. I don't think we should be saying a blanket 100 miles, it would need to be clearly identify what kinds of communities these routes would have to go into.

[Talleyrand]

How about they get a subsidy if they create routes in pre-approved areas designated by the DoIA?

[bore]

Yeah, the way I look at it section 1 seems to mainly be subsidising express inter city routes, there's no reason for bus companies to add on genuinely rural areas. Parts 2 and 3 look good though.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yeah, the way I look at it section 1 seems to mainly be subsidising express inter city routes, there's no reason for bus companies to add on genuinely rural areas. Parts 2 and 3 look good though.

Then the question is how to get resources from where they currently are, to where they need to be? There are more public infrastructure resources in cities and larger population centres. We want people in more isolated areas to have access to those larger population centres. It strikes me that if we want this to happen, we're better off giving a little extra to those urban/suburban bus companies who are prepared to expand routes to cover areas. But that's just my view.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Indeed, and it also means that you would be using companies that have existing markets and existing operations as opposed to starting from scratch in an area with no base at all and operating without any revenues as well.

I think Polnut is right on that count.

On the other hand, Polnut, would you be dead set against adding some kind of stipulation be it Talleyrand's or some other formulation to ensure only additions reaching into rural areas qualify for the subsidy?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Indeed, and it also means that you would be using companies that have existing markets and existing operations as opposed to starting from scratch in an area with no base at all and operating without any revenues as well.

I think Polnut is right on that count.

On the other hand, Polnut, would you be dead set against adding some kind of stipulation be it Talleyrand's or some other formulation to ensure only additions reaching into rural areas qualify for the subsidy?

Absolutely.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Indeed, and it also means that you would be using companies that have existing markets and existing operations as opposed to starting from scratch in an area with no base at all and operating without any revenues as well.

I think Polnut is right on that count.

On the other hand, Polnut, would you be dead set against adding some kind of stipulation be it Talleyrand's or some other formulation to ensure only additions reaching into rural areas qualify for the subsidy?

Absolutely.

If we do go beyond just rural though, which is implied as a possibility without a restriction to just rural areas, doesn't that fall out of the purpose of the bill, getting back to the whole bill purpose post that I made unless we want to go for transportation as a focus as opposed to rural poverty?

[Blair]

so we're turning a bill about rural poverty into a subsidy for already profitable city bus companies?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

so we're turning a bill about rural poverty into a subsidy for already profitable city bus companies?

No, we're trying to figure out where we can utilise existing resources more effectively.

[bore]

How about the subsidy is given to bus routes that stop somewhere that didn't have a service before?

[TNF]

Why subsidize them? Why not just nationalize the transit industry and do it ourselves? There's no point in giving money to a for-profit corporation when the problem is that they don't see a profit in doing what we'll be paying them to do anyway if we can do it ourselves. The fact that no system of rural mass transit exists is evidence enough that private mass transit companies have outlived their usefulness. Nationalize them all and place them under the control of the people who work for them and those who use the services.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Why subsidize them? Why not just nationalize the transit industry and do it ourselves? There's no point in giving money to a for-profit corporation when the problem is that they don't see a profit in doing what we'll be paying them to do anyway if we can do it ourselves. The fact that no system of rural mass transit exists is evidence enough that private mass transit companies have outlived their usefulness. Nationalize them all and place them under the control of the people who work for them and those who use the services.

Can you be constructive please? This isn't going to happen.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How about the subsidy is given to bus routes that stop somewhere that didn't have a service before?

Isn't that what Polnut was pushing though?

I think we need some more beef in the depatment of making sure that it is going to the primary objective here. As in a place that didn't have service before, but also didn't have some other means of service. Like a part of L.A. that has subways and taxis but no bus service. That really doesn't address the issue of rural poverty at all. You could easily find subsidized bus lines being established to rich suburbs and high end communities, which may be fine if you this was a make the transporation sector more green bill, but not so with a rural poverty bill.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

How about the subsidy is given to bus routes that stop somewhere that didn't have a service before?

Yankee is right this is pretty much what I'm suggesting - with a requirement to ensure that existing services or areas that could be reasonably extended don't benefit.

[TNF]

Why subsidize them? Why not just nationalize the transit industry and do it ourselves? There's no point in giving money to a for-profit corporation when the problem is that they don't see a profit in doing what we'll be paying them to do anyway if we can do it ourselves. The fact that no system of rural mass transit exists is evidence enough that private mass transit companies have outlived their usefulness. Nationalize them all and place them under the control of the people who work for them and those who use the services.

Can you be constructive please? This isn't going to happen.

It's more likely than a good bill coming out of this viper's den of moderate heroes.

[bore]

Right, I get that the intention is to only subsidise routes that legitimately expand to cover rural areas, but the way it's currently worded does leave it open to inter city routes and suburban expansions.

To be honest I think we have to accept that the line between a genuinely needy rural area and an already served one, or a suburban area with subways but no buses is very difficult in theory to draw but, in practice, a lot easier to see. I think we should consider a grant system administered by the department for internal affairs to solve the problem of the difficulty of a watertight definition.

[Barnes]

I strongly support President bore's recent comments.  The easiest way of adopting this plan would be for discretion to be given to the DoIA to administer grant and other funds.  Of course, the Senate should (and will) have a great deal of oversight, but it's very difficult to legislate line-by-line for every conceivable service and idea that could come under the scope of this very large proposal. 

Secondly, this bill in itself will obviously not eliminate rural poverty - that is an incredibly complex issue that has a nebulous web of factors.  However, by providing reliable and affordable transportation to our isolated communities we will be making a significant impact on many millions of peoples lives. 

We will be making a real difference for many, many people, and have a directly positive impact on their economic and social well-being.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Why subsidize them? Why not just nationalize the transit industry and do it ourselves? There's no point in giving money to a for-profit corporation when the problem is that they don't see a profit in doing what we'll be paying them to do anyway if we can do it ourselves. The fact that no system of rural mass transit exists is evidence enough that private mass transit companies have outlived their usefulness. Nationalize them all and place them under the control of the people who work for them and those who use the services.

Can you be constructive please? This isn't going to happen.

It's more likely than a good bill coming out of this viper's den of moderate heroes.

Put down the megaphone and the mirror. Have a drink, relax.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Right, I get that the intention is to only subsidise routes that legitimately expand to cover rural areas, but the way it's currently worded does leave it open to inter city routes and suburban expansions.

To be honest I think we have to accept that the line between a genuinely needy rural area and an already served one, or a suburban area with subways but no buses is very difficult in theory to draw but, in practice, a lot easier to see. I think we should consider a grant system administered by the department for internal affairs to solve the problem of the difficulty of a watertight definition.

I think this is fair. The reality is, for all kind of grants etc, the Department will have all kinds of definitions of what constitutes rural etc.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

So we are circling back around to the fact that rural public transportation is not profitable (read: economically-justifiable) in rural areas. Hmm.

I see some merits in trying to set up some kind of inter-city/inter-town/inter-hub service, but I do understand the complications involved with giving subsidies to, say, Greyhound or CoachUSAAtlasia. Perhaps giving the SoIA some discretion to sort this out himself is the best approach, but I'm actually not completely opposed to what TNF has proposed.

I think the best way to do it would be to create an umbrella rural transit authority in each region that we'd partially fund. Perhaps these transit authorities already exist. From there I'd hope these organizations would also loop in the counties/municipalities and expect funding from them. The goal of these transit authorities would be to oversee the growth of a regional system according to the tenets of some sort of master plan that we could decide.

Sadly, I just don't think the private sector is positioned to help us with something that is inherently impractical. That sounds more like the job of government.

[Talleyrand]

Does anyone have any amendments to propose to this?