20 Feb 07
Originally posted by RedmikeWell, that's what Venezuelan crude is best for. It's not the good "light sweet" crude like Saudi oil, so maybe I was confused.
You're thinking of tar.
What I was wondering about is, can Livingston legally make an agreement like that without approval from the Gubmint.?
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by MerkI'm not an expert on the different types of fuel, but this is for buses and maybe underground trains, so perhaps this is different from what we use in cars?
Well, that's what Venezuelan crude is best for. It's not the good "light sweet" crude like Saudi oil, so maybe I was confused.
What I was wondering about is, can Livingston legally make an agreement like that without approval from the Gubmint.?
I don't see why he can't make this deal without further approval.
Incidentally, it is the SSP's policy to make all public transport in Scotland free.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by RedmikeVenezuelan oil can be used in cars too it just takes more refining.
I'm not an expert on the different types of fuel, but this is for buses and maybe underground trains, so perhaps this is different from what we use in cars?
I don't see why he can't make this deal without further approval.
Incidentally, it is the SSP's policy to make all public transport in Scotland free.
No such thing as free transportation. The money comes out of someones pocket. Might as well be the people using the transportation.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by MerkWell, I don't agree that it should come out of the pocket of those using it.
Venezuelan oil can be used in cars too it just takes more refining.
No such thing as free transportation. The money comes out of someones pocket. Might as well be the people using the transportation.
Getting people out of cars and onto public transport is in everyone's interests.
20 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by RedmikeWhere practical sure. However, it seems terribly unfair for those whom public transportation does not work for. Why should they have to pay for their own transportation and someone elses while those taking public transportation aren't even paying the full burden for their own transportation?
Well, I don't agree that it should come out of the pocket of those using it.
Getting people out of cars and onto public transport is in everyone's interests.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by MerkThat's fair enough - you'd need to make sure that the public transport system was available to as many people as practical (no easy matter in Scotland). Which would mean more investment.
Where practical sure. However, it seems terribly unfair for those than public transportation does not work for. Why should they have to pay for there own transportation and someone elses while those taking public transportation aren't even paying the full burden for their own transportation?
Everyone would be contributing, in that their tax would be spent on public transport.
But it wouldn't necessarily need any more tax.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by RedmikeI've never been to the U.K. but my impression of Scotland is that of a poulation a little too spread out to lend itself to efficient public transport.
That's fair enough - you'd need to make sure that the public transport system was available to as many people as practical (no easy matter in Scotland). Which would mean more investment.
Everyone would be contributing, in that their tax would be spent on public transport.
But it wouldn't necessarily need any more tax.
London or any major city with that kind of density makes sense to me, but the more rural areas.... going several miles between stops is generally not good for public transport. That means less paying fares and therefore a bigger tax burden.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by MerkThere is already a huge tax burden on motorists in the UK. The government justifies this by claiming to be encouraging the use of public transport, but the bulk of the revenue raised gets used for building more roads.
I've never been to the U.K. but my impression of Scotland is that of a poulation a little too spread out to lend itself to efficient public transport.
London or any major city with that kind of density makes sense to me, but the more rural areas.... going several miles between stops is generally not good for public transport. That means less paying fares and therefore a bigger tax burden.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by Ian68Makes sense to me. Without roads they can't get tax money from motorists.
There is already a huge tax burden on motorists in the UK. The government justifies this by claiming to be encouraging the use of public transport, but the bulk of the revenue raised gets used for building more roads.