Alleviating Rural Poverty Act of 2015

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yes, section 1 is a regional issue.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm really worried with the Senate, every time we try and propose something only for it to be completely dismissed by saying it's a regional matter-the regions clearly haven't acted, and transport is an area where we have have control. I don't want the senate to become a shell group that simply deals with rather arcane senate rules and regulations. We need to act to actually make a difference

Well, there's fundamental constitutional authority. It doesn't matter if the Regions haven't acted, we can HELP them to do so, but we cannot act off our own bat.

[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.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

But again... while I'm generally supportive of this, we cannot get huffy on an issue so important. Hagrid actually makes some important points here, namely we need to clarify what the actual primary intent of this Bill is... I think we need to be very practical and strategic here. Atlasia has vast tracks of territory where public transport is just without any practical justification (this is not Europe we're talking about here). That's not ideal, but this this isn't about idealism. There are areas of rural Atlasia with reasonable enough population density that you make a decent case for limited subsidisation of public transport, in concert with the existing providers.

It seems like the Bill is trying to 'solve' too many issues at once, social isolation of the lower-income people, reducing emissions from existing transport rather than targeting one, with strong knock-on benefits. The reality is the emissions intensity in rural areas is nowhere near as key to the issue of emissions reduction than in urban areas, although increasing the focus on cleaner tech has my full support. The key to me, and this something I have personally worked on, is decreasing social isolation and increasing economic opportunities by connecting smaller population centres to larger ones with more going on.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Absolutely - which is why I'm saying that that we need to be a lot more strategic here and focus more clearly on what issue we're actually focusing on. What will work in say, the NE, the South and ME won't be useful in vast areas of the MW and Pacific.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Instead of yet another bill which gives funds to the regions, why can't this be a federally administered program? As long as there was some coordination with the appropriate local authorities, I don't think it would be too much of an issue.

For a number of reasons actually
1. Local knowledge
2. Maintenance of local roads is not a responsibility of ours, but would be impacted by increased traffic flows
 etc etc

But I think IF it is to be a Federally administered program (why it HAS to be... I'm not sure), then its scope must be smaller and more specifically targeted. Otherwise, you'll end up with de-markation fights and inevitably demands from the regions for things like maintenance of non-Federally owned infrastructure.

This still doesn't address what the fundamental intent of this Bill is.

My off the top of my head idea is - set parameters, distance to major settlement (ie 1500 people or more) subsidise local transportation companies to either extend existing routes or establish new ones. With reduced fares for those eligible for certain benefits?

The environmental angle is much harder to push here, because rural transport providers likely don't have the capacity to maintain green-tech vehicles at this time. Different parts, different maintenance routines, that requires training, and not the least the purchase of the vehicles. The way around it, could be to argue for increased green standards in areas of a particular density that makes investment in the time, vehicle and training worthwhile economically.

There's also an equity issue here, which is concerning, obviously rural poverty is a long-standing issue and increased connectivity to larger settlements is a big deal. But there are Atlasians who live in urban/suburban fringes who are cut off due to poor public transport options.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Instead of yet another bill which gives funds to the regions, why can't this be a federally administered program? As long as there was some coordination with the appropriate local authorities, I don't think it would be too much of an issue.

because MUH REGIONAL RITES

Cute, but no.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It seems to me just as misguided to say that there are no areas in atlasia that would benefit from a bus service than to say that every rural area in atlasia should have a bus service.
 

Who has said this?


Of course there are some areas that can benefit from buses. High density city, and suburbs of said cities and rural areas within X distance of said city/suburb provided they have Y population.

And are there not thousands of those rural areas in atlasia?I 'm not sure I get what your point is here.

It seems to me pretty indisputable that there are a lot of rural areas in atlasia that don't currently have bus services but would benefit from one, with a relatively minimal cost for the government. It's true that not every rural area can support a bus service, but that's no more an argument against that bill than the existence of people who aren't able to be doctors is against funding medical schools.

If Hagrid or Yankee want to propose an amendment for a car pool subsidy for the even more remote area or for their other concerns than I'd definitely consider it.

Respectfully Mr President I disagree. If we're talking about health and education we're taking about direct service provision by the Government. Usually those in very distant and remote areas have education and health provided directly by the Government. This goes back to my fundamental concern that we're skipping wanting to feel good about ourselves without determining the parameters of this Bill.

I'm not in any way dismissing any option here, but it keeps wandering down rabbit holes - what services should be provided? To whom? By whom? It seems we're too focused on ends and not means. As I said before I've personally done work in this area and it's nowhere near as easy to do as many seem to be thinking.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Well, it depends on whether we'd provide an alternative transportation method (such as discounted taxiing) or something for the areas that people feel are not worthy of public bus transportation.

As for divvying up money to the regions again, I don't think that's necessary. This is something the DoIA can do on a more consistent basis throughout the country in coordination with local authorities. Not a fan of giving lump sums to the regions.

Worthy?

Anyway. The issue is that there can be Constitutional issues with by-passing the Regions. So we'd need to tread carefully.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

What exactly are the constitutional issues that would arise from making a program like this federal?

I'm not saying there absolutely is, it's just making sure that we don't step on toes. We also need to finally determine what the parameters of this are.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Couldn't we just give this money to Barnes at the Department of Internal Affairs and let him set something up from there?

I would prefer to not just hand over the money, considering the importance of this issue. We do need to be clear about who? where? and how?

I do have some ideas, give me 24 hours and I'll try to put them together.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

AYE