Published on 12, July, 2020
A lot of things would be better if people knew they could use public transport when they needed it at a convenient price. Not everyone is able to drive and cars are expensive to run. Economies of scale mean that the more people you put on one vehicle the more cost efficient it is. That isn't to say nobody should own cars, some people need them. However, a lot of people do not need, at least they don't if there was a good public transport system in place. Personally I would create a 24 hour system. It would cost more initially but I think the benefits in the long term would far outweigh those costs and besides if a 24 hour system with regular times was put in place a lot of the money people spend on cars could then be rerouted to funding the public transport system through taxation.
You appreciate of course that a 24 hours transport system can never be profitable. At least not on the conventional models. It’s never going to be profitable to run a bus that has maybe only one or two passengers on average late at night. But that’s not unusual for a bus running from the city centre out into the suburbs at 2am.
it’s never going to be profitable to run buses between tiny little villages on a regular basis multiple times a day.
A bus designed to hold 20 or 30 people driving back-and-forth with only one or two people in it is never going to be fuel efficient or economic.
what rural areas have done in some parts of the country is have subsidised on demand minibuses where the bus only turns up when someone calls for it usually with a reasonable amount of advance notice. This still isn’t profitable and requires public tax money in order to subsidise it. But it requires less subsidisation than regularly running bus services to tiny villages.
I think one good idea would be to have effectively a subsidised taxi service that operates on a carpooling system. Given that some large tax is now almost a size of minibuses anyway. particular ones designed to carry wheelchairs. You could have a smart phone app that you use to call for the public taxi which would be significantly cheaper than a private taxi. The trade-off is it may not arrive as quickly and when it does arrive it may have other passengers in it, it may take detour on my way to your destination to drop other passengers off or even to pick other passengers up. As a consequence you don’t really know for sure when you’re going to arrive at your destination. but that’s also very much true of current buses.
at the end of the day I don’t think people have the patience anymore for multiple changes to get from point A to point B not when they had the convenience of using a car. Not when the roundabout journeys on the buses can take 50 to 100% longer.
mass transit (underground and elevated light rail networks) can help a little bit. but it can be a double edged sword because it can persuade too many people to work in too small an area. see the tube system in central London for a good example of that.
It seems to be that the Irish government since Covid have become much more radical and Millitant in removing social service public transport routes, along with everything else needed like banks and post offices in Rural Ireland, in order to actively discourage people from living in Rural areas, even with their own petrol, diesel or even hybrid or electric cars and force them to live in big cities and make it virtually impossible to live in rural areas
It is indeed very real and terrifying, not only for our generation, but more importantly, for future generations
Please research the Great Reset, sustainable development goals, Agenda 2030 and Agenda 2040
No, it's the way our leaders plan for us to live in the future.. They tell us in pain english, in wdely pubished and freely available essays.
It's no "theory"
It's da future!!!.
I suspect it’s less a question of forcing people to live in cities and more just a reality that cuts tend to start in rural areas first. From a politicians point of view he is trying to buy votes with public services. Therefore why shouldn’t he spend that money in places where lots of people will experience a public service. He gets more bang for his buck that way.
if there are more votes available in the city than the countryside you prioritise spending in the city if you have to make a choice between the two.