Victor Villas

mostly inactive, lemmy.ca is now too tainted with trolls from big instances we’re not willing to defederate

  • 0 Posts
  • 10 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 9th, 2023

help-circle


  • Public yes, but not nationalized.

    What’s the distinction here? You mean that you want it to be federal instead of provincial? Or that a govt-owned company doesn’t count as nationalized because its governance is too similar to a private company?

    What I sparsely understood from your comment is that these agencies need more govt funding and less reliance on fees, which I totally agree. Not sure if that’s what nationalizing transit means, though.

    There’s Government Service, and there’s Public Service Badly Managed for Profit. Hint: if our ferry system tries to bill itself as a tour operator, it’s in the latter group.

    So is the problem with BC Ferries that it’s badly managed and the way it markets itself… or is the issue that it receives too little govt funding? I think it’s the latter.



  • It feels like I’m missing something, maybe because I’m not a politician or a transportation engineer. It’s very common that upper spheres of government will provide extra funding focused on capital expenditures like building new infrastructure but won’t commit to operational expenditures like maintenance and salaries.

    I wonder if it’s some sort of political game of being able to claim funding for shiny new things, because expansion is flashier than maintenance. Or maybe there’s a real governance aspect to it, considering that OPEX should stay under control at the right level as to not overstep the scope of each sphere of government - transit agencies should not grow accustomed to funding that is supposed to be extra. IDK, I guess I’m not ready to have an opinion on this. I’ll just trust whatever the folks at Movement say.



  • How do you imagine elderly people that don’t really understand technology would cope with downloading an app or going to a web site to pay for parking.

    Using a card. If they’re able to drive, they’re probably able to carry a card and tap it. Maybe it’s a failure of my imagination but I can’t conceptualize someone being able to drive and park a car and yet this same person can’t use a card.

    Edit just to clarify: the article mentions “a smart phone with a credit card to pay for parking” specifically, and I guess it’s my fault for going a bit off topic without a more explicit disclaimer. I don’t think a smart phone should be required for anything. I’m just curious about the anti-cashless movement in general, because a smartphone isn’t the only alternative to cash.