Alleviating Rural Poverty Act of 2015

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I have to say, I am extremely skeptical of rural bus service. If it worked, it would already exist. The population density in rural areas makes it almost impossible to establish an effective public transportation scheme. Inter-city transportation between semi-rural hubs is more feasible, but in that case I think we'd have to set some clearer definitions.

But if you're talking about sending a city bus down Country Road #18 for 40 miles, I'm going to have to object. In that case, it would be better to use this money to subsidize the purchase of cars or fuel. And that's certainly not ideal either from a number of perspectives.

All that aside, I'm certainly okay with the first clause of the bill.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

A bus with only one person in it is not more environmentally friendly than a car with only one person in it.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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

We have some control over transport, but doing what's smart isn't the same as doing something just because we feel like we should.

I guess one question I have is this: Are we actually sending buses out into rural farm country or forests? Or is the idea to keep the bus service centralized around nearby population "centres" where there's at least a bit more population density?

I could support this funding if we smartly keep transit to these mini-hubs, but I still struggle to see how we'd make it work if we start carving out routes into the countryside. We can't support any measure of full service, and since rural areas are so sparsely populated the designation of transit routes would seem pretty arbitrary. Obviously it'd be based on some sort of data, but because this type of transit is so unviable, where the routes actually go would hardly matter; they're not going to be used.

People who live in the countryside exhibit a disproportionately high level of car ownership compared to people who live in urban centres. The only folks who would be less likely to have cars in rural areas are those living in the mini-hubs around a "main strip" of shops, restaurants, and the like. Service in the hubs, between the hubs, could work. Service along obscure country lanes absolutely will not.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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

[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.

[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!

[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.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I agree we need a greener transportation system. Where it works. A transportation system in the areas we're talking about doesn't make sense period. So I have a hard time seeing how the rest of your post even applies.

I support spending where and when it makes sense. It doesn't make sense here. It's not about "emasculated fiscal conservatism." It's about being pragmatic and spending money where it can make the most difference.

And again, no engagement with the other ideas (now two of them) I've put forward that could much more efficiently close the transportation gap. It's not worth me saying much more at this point.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I think we either divvy up funds for the regions or set very clear parameters regarding which areas will qualify for bus service. I can work on it, but I'm afraid too many areas would be left on the chopping block for a majority of the senate go get on board.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'd be inclined to favour bypassing the regions here, for the simple reason that the type of areas we can help with a bus service are located more in areas like the northeast than the midwest.

Well, those are regions.

[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.