Yes. I don't mind if e-scooter schemes make a profit. But I'd prefer that the schemes are tax-payer owned and the profit was reinvested into expanding the scheme and other environmentally friendly public transport services such as buses, trains and trams etc.
25 Apr 2023
1.0K
-
So you do think that government money should be spent on it because if it was profitable then it wouldn't have shut down, so you're arguing for public subsidy.
-
My point was more general, I don't know the specifics of the finances of the Nottm scheme. There are many successful schemes around the world so I'm more inclined to think that the Nottm scheme wasn't being ran very well.
Again, more generally, I'm not against some subsidising of alternate forms of transport from the tax payers purse if it's beneficial to the public as a whole. Let's compare to cars - it's not like vehicle tax goes anywhere near to paying the incredible sums the government spends on roads every year.
-
That's a disingenuous comparison though, because car drivers aren't the only people realising the benefit of roads. You may not have a car but you cycle on the roads, you buy goods from the grocery store that are delivered using the roads, when you fall off your bike or you set fire to your house the emergency services get to you using the roads. They are a public good realised by all.
That isn't the case with scooters, which can only be used by people sufficiently able bodied to do so. They also can't be used to transport multiple people and they can't be used to transport goods - in fact they have a really limited usage model. While I am fully in tune with your desire to see improved public transportation systems, I don't think that providing middle aged hipsters from Mapperley Park with their preferred alternative to driving into town because they're too cool to be seen on the loser cruiser is a good use of public funds. If there isn't sufficient demand for the service that private enterprise can afford to run it, the government has no place being involved. It would be better off using the money it would have lost on that to subsidise a few loss making bus routes.
-
I don't think it's as black and white as that. I'd argue that way too much is being spent on roads than should be, again, especially given the situation the climate is in. For example our gov is spending over two BILLION on a 3km bypass tunnel under Stonehenge. Yes, I said BILLION.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/20/national-audit-office-questions-value-of-stonehenge-tunnel
Yet the active transport budget of only a few hundred million was recently halved.
www.theguardian.com/news/2023/mar/20/cuts-cycling-walking-budget-england-cost-more-long-term-labour
Our priorities are totally fucked.
So yeah, can I stand a council subsidising, if necessary, some more active transport options? I sure can. I'd like them to be self sufficient (and believe they can be), but if it needs a little public funding that's fine by me. I don't have the numbers to hand, but I bet there's a ton of savings that are harder to measure around it too. People who use a scooter occasionally are I imagine much more likely to try other forms of active transport which is good for our carbon footprint, I bet they are generally more healthy, which saves the NHS money, they free up bus capacity for people who can't walk or wheel, and don't use their cars as much.
-
I don't really get this. Would you, for example, cut all the loss making bus, train and ferry routes to remote areas of Scotland because they are subsidised by the Government?
-
If you read that selective quote in context, it's pretty clear that I was talking specifically about funding scooter services. I even stated that the money would be better spent on loss making bus services, because unlike a scooter a 70 year old with a bag of groceries can use that as easily as an able bodied 35 year old can.
I also don't think that government should be funding skateboards, bicycles, or hoverboards, for exactly the same reason.
-
The Gov already does, to a degree, fund bicycle purchases though the tax free purchase scheme.
Government and councils subsidise buses, ferries, trams and some train routes.
The Gov subsidise road building and maintenance.
The Gov give huge tax breaks to airlines.
Let's use a tiny tiny amount of this for scooters if needed.
-
Again, you're missing my point. All those things you list are available for all people to use, and have multimodal value. Scooters are not and do not.
-
Wider context - our gov refusing to raise fuel duty alongside inflation year on year.
www.smf.co.uk/commentary_podcasts/fuel-duty-and-public-finances/
Over ten years of fuel for cars getting, relatively, cheaper. Whilst public transport costs have rocketed.
It's fucking bonkers.
-
I disagree that things can only be supported by the public purse if they have multiple uses and are accessible to everyone. As I've explained, just because my mum won't use one, doesn't mean that she won't see the wider societal benefits of others using them. It's also all relative. We're talking lose change in government budget terms assigned to all other transport modes.
-
I can say for some certainty that spending my new year's eve discussing e-scooter budgets with a guy in Canada ranks really low on my list of best NYE parties.
-
I really hope Russ says it's one of his best.
-
I'm currently scrubbing a rental property clean so I can say that yes, these interludes to discuss transport policy with Jim are the highlight so far.
-
Your argument has no logical congruity. Trams are not available for me to use, because they are not nearby, and don't go where I want them to go. Roads are not safe for me to use as a cyclist. But we should fund public transport, and roads, because they contribute towards making a place suitable for business use, to promote an increased local economy, and enhanced standard of living for people who don't use those things, but do benefit from the wider infrastructure and social capital that they help support.
If you were to make an argument based on utility, you would perhaps need to get Guru involved to make a formula that looked at the ability of a subsidised transport method to carry people and goods, versus the cost of impact in congestion and consumption of resources (footprint on highways, wear on roads, consumption of land to store while unused). I'm willing to bet that cars are significantly over-subsidised and small personal transport massively under-subsidised (and increasingly necessary because public transport does not cut the mustard). Charging batteries, or burning fossil fuel, to move a ton of metal, rather than 20 kilos of scooter is surely a cost and environmental benefit that even the most dense can see the use of? All should play a part in an integrated transport policy, to assist in moving goods and people, in the most resource efficient way, which we don't have. If a thousand people journey to work every day on scooters, that's a thousand less cars, at a substantially lower cost in terms of resource consumption and frees those resources for other commercial and social activity, at a reduced economic, environmental, and resource cost.
It also means more staff can get to work because they are not being fucked up by public transport on congested roads, and thus be more productive working units. It also increases consumers flexibility in visiting market centres, and the possibility of them being more useful consuming units.
Use your car, or use public transport, but we are going to fuck up your public transport, only ends one way. Really badly. As times change, utilising new efficient forms of public transport should be increasing in importance, not subject to out of date dogma. There are all ready lots of places where the car is completely useless for certain necessary journeys. Freeing up road space by replacing many journeys with compact personal transport solutions is a positive contributor in this space. Using such solutions to hook up with existing transport hubs, when many people live and work in locations disconnected from them, could massively reduce the number of road miles consumed unnecessarily by large vehicles, unsuited for individual transport, in congested areas.
That is all a positive for an enhanced standard of living directly, and building a more commercially active market centre leading to increased wealth and a subsequent indirect increase in the standard of living. More than subsidising amazon to keep more profits, and pay their staff a wage below the cost of living, and consume the resources provided by society (roads, workforce), and not pay tax, does.
-
Is that true?
