We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Public Transport Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Gluaiseacht Shaoráil DhaonlathachIt
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: December 2516
Description[?]:
| To introduce more competition which will lead to lower operational costs and ticket prices. 1. Private enterprises must submit a tender for a contract. 2. A national independent Railway Authority (RA) will be established to guard the public's interest. 3. The RA is authorized to intervene. Ultimately, this might mean withdrawing licenses. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Train Operating Companies (TOC).
Old value:: There is a single publicly owned TOC.
Current: There is a single privately owned national TOC.
Proposed: Private companies operate TOCs throughout the country.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:39:38, January 12, 2008 CET | From | Kirlawan Popular Front | To | Debating the Public Transport Act |
| Message | Privatisation, especially when in a fractured manner, would not reduce costs (the duplication of effort would increase costs in fact). Ticket prices would be at the whim of companies seeking profits. Passengers who wish to travel through more than one TOC's service area will be penalised. Each TOC would in effect be a mini-monopoly on the routes it covers, but without public control, a monopoly is even more egregious. In short, it would not be the panacea that you assume. |
| Date | 22:28:48, January 12, 2008 CET | From | Conservative and Environmentalist Party | To | Debating the Public Transport Act |
| Message | While I agree that this would not reduce costs saying that moving through several TOC's will penalise travellers is utter rubbish as that is not how it is in the UK. Saying that each TOC would become a mini monopoly is also rubbish as they are subject to government controls and can have their license removed at anytime. I would also argue that the introduction of TOC's would introduce special fares as trains would have to compete with other forms of transport. |
| Date | 01:41:18, January 13, 2008 CET | From | Kirlawan Popular Front | To | Debating the Public Transport Act |
| Message | The dogma of the capitalists is clearly clouding this debate. They are even bringing up mythical countries in their arguments. Under what mechanism will TOCs be liable to lose their licenses at 'any time'? Will this promise make it less likely that private companies wish to expose themselves to the risk of losing their franchise? This idea alone will mean an increase in the risk to the TOCs - and therefore an increase in the cost to everyone else. OOC: as far as I can see in the UK, not only has it actually penalised travellers, the service is marginally better, the fares are much higher and the subsidies from the taxpayers are also higher. The best thing that has happened was the bringing back into public control of Railtrack, and when South Eastern was publicly run it was no worse, if not better than it had been under the previous private company. I've been a commuter, and I know rail policy, and you are not going to convince me that the current UK system is an improvement on BR. |
| Date | 10:41:06, January 13, 2008 CET | From | Gluaiseacht Shaoráil DhaonlathachIt | To | Debating the Public Transport Act |
| Message | We realise that it will take some time to transform our current state run Railways to different market and regional orientated organizations. Kirlawan Railways is notorious for its bureaucracy, unpleasantness and terrible financial management. For centuries the KR serviced the nation like that. Of course one can get used to these standards but the taxpayer and passenger deserve better. However, it takes a while to break off KR's service " tradition". The introduction of new and higher service levels, like having better trained staff, upgrading stations and new equipment, requires long term investments. We are willing to accept that. Private enterprises must submit a tender for a contract. A national independent Railway Authority will guard the public's interest and the RA is allowed to intervene. Ultimately, this might mean withdrawing licenses. |
| Date | 12:44:33, January 13, 2008 CET | From |  Social Liberal Party | To | Debating the Public Transport Act |
| Message | We will support, provided the independent railway authority's independence and ability to withdraw a licence if a TOC is being run in a fashion against the public interest, is enshrined in law. |
| Date | 14:19:38, January 13, 2008 CET | From | Conservative and Environmentalist Party | To | Debating the Public Transport Act |
| Message | Well I disagree with your argument KDPF, the system is better, it encourages private investment in Rolling Stock and stations, governments subsidise systems all over the world whether they are private or public. Allowing private TOC's would encourage more investment that the government can't provide. I believe the network would improve but as with everything it would take time. After all the government would never have bought Pendilino or Voyager Trains for passengers comfort and safety, or CCTV for all stations, plus improved disabled facilities or rolling stock with electronic doors to improve safety for passengers. |
| Date | 21:42:46, January 13, 2008 CET | From | Kirlawan Popular Front | To | Debating the Public Transport Act |
| Message | OOC: CEP - if you want to discuss the UK system, use OOC comments, not RP. IC: KR is not perfect, we agree. The main issue is a lack of investment, as there is always a call for 'lower taxes', despite the fact that the proportion of GDP which is taxes is pretty low. As a result, the government has not had the capacity to make the improvements required. Instead of selling the railways off, we could invest in them. The difference is that companies will make profits at the expense of passengers. |
| Date | 00:27:54, January 14, 2008 CET | From | Conservative and Environmentalist Party | To | Debating the Public Transport Act |
| Message | Fair enough, I shall try (my apologies, i am not too familiar with ooc comments). But as the budget has been running at a surplus for quite a while it could also be construed that we are profiting off the public. The improvements that TOC's have created for passengers at minimal profits, we're talking millions not 10's of millions, keep TOC's happy while saving the government some money. I'm sure the government could regulate fares to prevent abuse |
| Date | 00:41:33, January 14, 2008 CET | From | Anti Egalitarian Alliance | To | Debating the Public Transport Act |
| Message | Railways are part of the national infrasctructure and should be publically owned. |
| Date | 22:28:32, January 14, 2008 CET | From | Kirlawa Democratic Labour | To | Debating the Public Transport Act |
| Message | Suprisingly, I agree with the Fascists |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 342 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 375 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In cases where a party has no seat, the default presumption should be that the party is able to contribute to debates in the legislature due to one of its members winning a seat at a by-election. However, players may collectively improvise arrangements of their own to provide a satisfying explanation for how parties with no seats in the legislature can speak and vote there. |
| Random quote: "God has cared for these trees, saved them from drought, disease, avalanches, and a thousand tempests and floods. But he cannot save them from fools." - John Muir |