• user75736572@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah but for it to be free they’d have to raise taxes so it’s better to just privatise them which would lower taxes and provide a better service

        • CurlyMoustache@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          They did it where I live. The result is it on average a bit more expensive. Long trips (6-7 hours-ish) is controlled by the state. Prices are about the same as when the railway was owned by the people. But the shorter trips are under the rules of capitalism, and therefore the prices have gone up.

          If you only travel from Trondheim to Oslo, you pay the same as before. If you travel only 1-3 stops, or under two hours in total, the prices have increased alot. If you live outside of Oslo, but work in Oslo, your daily expenses have gone up.

          Before I could catch a train at a very, very low price and take my bike with me to explore. Now it is almost impossible because it is expensive, and the private companies that runs the different routes do not want you to take anything large with you.

          And don’t get me started on trying to navigate between all the companies that run the different routes. It is a cluster fuck compared to when it was all one company owned by us, the citizens of Norway

          • user75736572@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            “by the people” you mean the government they’re not on your side. Also you were paying for it inderectly through the ridiculous taxes without even realising it. And the situation would be better if it wasn’t an overegulated industry

              • user75736572@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                If it was voluntary and a flat amount it would be fair, you might like it because it benefits you but it’s completely ridiculous for a billionaire who doesn’t event want to use these insufficient services

    • markr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes it is. Luckily we have a system of taxation. By ‘free’ I mean of course ‘at the point of use’. We could provide 100% subsidies for mass transportation for probably around 100 years before we would approach equity with the subsidies we have given to fossil fuels and private transportation.

      • user75736572@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The reason people don’t use public transport is because right now it absolutely sucks in most places if you want more people to use them then they need to be privatised so a business that actually has an insentive to provide a good service can take over and make them great ( for example look at Japan). This way you can also lower taxes a bit which is great for the economy

        • markr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Oh I agree. Use cost is one major problem, quality and non-existence is the other. However privatization is neoliberal bullshit. It doesn’t guarantee quality. It guarantees that profits will be extracted and therefore use cost will increase and/or quality will decrease.

          • user75736572@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Companies actually have to make their customers happy, if there is adequate competition it will definitely work out, if you look at almost any industry (that isn’t overegulated) the customers are satisfied, companies have real insentives governments don’t.

            • markr@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              There is no competition for train lines. That is just stupid. Also multiple competing local bus services is equally stupid. Some services just don’t fit in the neoliberal model.

              • user75736572@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Ther’s no competition if you have a bureaucrats approving only specific train lines if you just live it to the free market it’ll be alright

      • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        anyone wealthy enough to buy a car can use it for free

        Anyone with a car is paying additional taxes for fuel and car registration.

        • Nurgle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Those typically don’t cover all of transportation dept budgets, and fuel taxes are on the permanent decline.

          • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Ticket prices don’t cover the full costs of train infrastructure and maintenance either. The point is the statement “anyone wealthy enough to buy a car can use it for free” is demonstrably false and using a demonstrably false statement as a counterpoint is…inadvisable.

            • Nurgle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Felt there was an implicit understanding that cars need gas, but yeah that’s fair.

            • elvis_depresley@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I should have specified “… can use the infrastructure for free”. The car will cost money, but you can only use it because everyone subsidises roads, bridges, parking and much more.

              • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Car drivers are demonstrably paying taxes for the ability to drive on public roads, they are demonstrably not “using the infrastructure for free”. They pay taxes for every mile they drive on a public road. Gas is taxed and cars have regular registration taxes.