Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
But the economies of scale (it's cheaper per capita to provide a higher total volume of service) actually strengthen my argument (that a viable public transport system in NZ requires higher levels of funding than most local bodies are comfortable with), and that's why I dismissed them with a handwave above. The estimate of a 95% cost subsidy still stands as a minimum for NZ, if we are to have a comparable level of service in terms of frequency (NB: not capacity! this is a per capita comparison) and network density (station/ route spacing), while still keeping costs to commuters down to something affordable.
What you've said, is that running a public transport system for one million people, costs exactly the same as running a public transport system for twenty million people. And therefore to make it viable for the one million, they should pay the same cost as the twenty million, and the money that the other nineteen million would have paid, should be paid by subsidy (95% of the total cost).
The first presumption, that running a public transport system for one million people costs as much as running one for twenty million people, is clearly nonsense. You don't need a ten buses running every ten minutes simply to deal with demand. You can have one running every ten minutes. That's nine buses, and nine drivers etc etc, that you don't pay for. The service is still just as good, there just aren't 20 million people trying to use it.
The point about economies of scale is that it wouldn't cost 1/20th to run the system for a million, it would probably cost 1/10th, making it twice as expensive per capita.
Once we see that your base presumption is nonsense, your 95% subsidy claim is also.
-
Hence, a PT system good enough to use under NZ conditions requires massive subsidies from city councils/local bodies/central government. Getting to Tokyo standards would require 95% subsidisation of the actual cost.
That's a pretty simplistic analysis. I haven't been to Tokyo, but some of the economies of scale will have taken effect. 20 times the population won't mean 20 times the number of trains. It'll mean (depending on the time) more trains, but larger ones than you would see in a NZ city. Other economies of scale will have a lesser impact. If you have 20 times as many people travelling during peak hour, and in NZ the bus was full, well then in Tokyo you have 20 buses, which means 20 vehicles, 20 drivers etc. That's not really cheaper at all, just bigger.
Also, if getting to Tokyo standards means, 20 buses going past a bus stop every 10 minutes, which is the sort of volume they'd need there, then that's a bit silly for NZ.
I don't know what the actual figures are, but I'd presume that if we pay a reasonable subsidy now, then doubling it would have a pretty strong impact upon price/quality/convenience.
Personally I'm with some other people who have suggested that the more inconvenient cars get, the better public transport will both look, and actually be. If something is bad, and we want to discourage it, up the tariffs on it - purchase and use. Then we'll change the behaviour.
-
I saw it Jackie. It was very good, and also incredibly personal - not just from him, but from other people who told their stories. It kinda finished very abruptly - is there more, or just harsh editing?
I was amazed at the cocktail of drugs that these people were on. Seriously, at 13 year old kid on what looked like 7 or 8 different drugs, totalling up to about 100 pills a week. With American doctors diagnosing kids as bipolar as young as 3! That can't be good.
-
the ability to drag off hoons, sneaking up on little old ladies in parking lots on the electric motor ...
It's a big Friday night here in Dunedin...
I must say, that's something you really feel the benefit of in Los Angeles. They might be damn near living in their cars, but at least when you're stuck in a freeeway jam you can open your windows and breathe.
You must be talking about Los Angeles. Texas. Los Angeles, California, you can feel the smog around you. My ex doesn't hang her clothes on the washing line anymore, because they go out clean, and come in slightly brown. And that's in her back yard.
-
But I agree with you, on the face of it, about the police action in giving him his sword and his passport without making inquiries. Perhaps there are parts of that we don't know about, but it looks bad.
I would presume that the police were only legally entitled to hold them for a certain period of time. The sword perhaps was evidence in a previous domestic assault, not dealt with through the courts, and his passport must have been held to prevent flight. Again, presumably if he's done whatever punishment he got for that previous crime, no longer an issue.
No doubt a lot of people will now point at this along with other things, and say that the police shouldn't have given him his stuff back on that day. But police can only hold your belongings for legal reasons, not just because you've hit your wife previously, and you might do it again. There wouldn't have been a legal basis for that.
-
This seems like the ideal thread to ask a question which has been giving me some difficulty on and off for a couple of years (google, my apparently fickle friends, has been no help!).
Whatever Happened To Tracy - I have this vague (real, or possibly not) memory that the inspiration for this song was a girl that went missing. However I haven't been able to find confirmation. Does anyone know what the story is?
-
I do like that one where the guy in the cardboard box gets to go fishing, to France etc with the team - surely everyone wants to do that?
Where do I know the actor who plays that part from? He's familiar from somewhere else, but not being able to remember is starting to annoy me.
-
There isn't really any need for regional rights holders for online content.
No, not a need, but it does happen.
Yahoo has some sort of agreement to show NHL Ice Hockey games. They use ip addresses to limit it to North America. I presume that is because they've only bought rights for that region (or a TV company has, and they've pushed the online rights onto yahoo for the region).
-
We had all these choice jersey's in an old glory box that we could practice in (random selection, hmmm I'll play in Wellington colours today...). Swapping jerseys is the highest freaking honour you can give to your opponent, it says alot, let alone if a jersey ends up on a clubroom wall beside your life member inscription.
Addidas, jeebus, what the hell do they know.I'm with you on any ban on swapping jerseys being not on. It shouldn't be compulsory, but it shouldn't be banned. Portugal played with great heart, spirit, and passion. Fully deserving of taking home a black jersey to treasure, if the All Black is willing to give it up.
I presume that, unlike a lot of less wealthy national teams, the All Blacks get a new top every game. And from the news story I saw before they left, half-a-dozen pair of shoes, several sets of clothing, hats, etc etc etc. At the very least, if they give some tops away, they won't have excess baggage on the way home.
-
If it was their last game, when they were assured of finishing top, it would’ve been funny to see the Boks throw that one to see Tonga through to the quarters…
They would’ve done that, wouldn’t they?
I'm not sure if that's in the Springbok character. And they would have been completely crucified at home, and internationally as well.