peter236

As a libertarian, I agree with privatization of trankslink.  Government projects are always uneconomical in the long run.
kipposhi 發表於 2010-2-7 15:16

This is not going to happen as Translink is not making money. So no company will buy it. But Skytrain is still needed so that people can have a choice not to drive their own cars. The result is a reduction of traffic jam and pollution.

kipposhi

This is not going to happen as Translink is not making money. So no company will buy it. But Skytrain is still needed so that people can have a choice not to drive their own cars. The result is a red ...
peter236 發表於 2010-2-7 17:16

That should be privatized because it is not making money now.  When the price is low enough, someone will buy it.

Traffic jam?? we should build more roads and highways.

Carbon dioxide is not pollutant.

mcjohnjohn

問題不在於興建高鐵與否，是在於是否必要夾硬直插入西九
六百億可省五至十分鐘時間？
除港島市民是順路北上，其它都要走回頭路是否更費時？
如果一地兩檢不能在這條鐵路上實行的話，所有從內地去的旅客有可能就要在深圳下車辦通關手續再到香港是否更白痴？
問題多多仍要夾硬上馬。但又如何？無論點都無法阻止政府惡法，看看民建聯如何令立法會流會就知點解！
立法會是用來監察政府，為市民權益發聲，如變為政府的認聲虫，哈巴狗，立法會如同虛設
不是白痴都應該明
ricrick 發表於 2010-2-7 05:45

高鐵既target user 係商人, 所以就要起o係商業中心先可以發揮到佢既功用. (比政府洗緊腦)
最好就起o係中環, 不過, 既然政府而家想發展西九成為香港既另一個金融機構既集中點, 咁起o係西九都無可厚非既.
無可否認, 冇得一地兩檢真係好白痴. 不過有鑑於政治考慮, 小弟寧願唔要一地兩檢, 都好過搵d 公安去進駐香港...

至於立法會, 小弟全力支持普選的!

快樂牛郎

That should be privatized because it is not making money now.  When the price is low enough, someone will buy it.

Traffic jam?? we should build more roads and highways.

Carbon dioxide is not pollutant.

But would it save you any money in the long run if it's privatized?

If you want more roads and highways, who will pay for them?
If demands for oil pick up and gas prices move up again, car drivers will also have to spend more

快樂牛郎

It's not enough to discuss the profitability of something in isolation.  You also have to evaluate the cost of not having it and pick the one with lower cost.

peter236

That should be privatized because it is not making money now.  When the price is low enough, someone will buy it.

Traffic jam?? we should build more roads and highways.

Carbon dioxide is not pollu ...
kipposhi 發表於 2010-2-7 19:21

If the government builds more roads and highways, they still have to pay more money. Using your logic, does the government make money from more highways? If not, the highways should be privatized?
The pollutants from cars are harmful to people and the environment. I can't believe you didn't know about it. You didn't know about health care costs because of more pollution?

Now, it is clear that you are illogical, as you think government built mass transportation should be privatized, since most of them are not profitable and pollutants from cars are okay.

soli

Now, it is clear that you are illogical, as you think government built mass transportation should be privatized, since most of them are not profitable and pollutants from cars are okay.

非常同意~

ricrick

如果阿爺比錢我舉腳贊成
家下邊個比錢？服務邊個？邊個濕腳？邊個油水？

為何有更省錢方案從不考慮？吾貴吾做，一意孤行，急急上馬，為什麼？

Lik

高鐵既target user 係商人, 所以就要起o係商業中心先可以發揮到佢既功用. (比政府洗緊腦)
最好就起o係中環, 不過, 既然政府而家想發展西九成為香港既另一個金融機構既集中點, 咁起o係西九都無可厚非既.
無可否認, 冇得一地兩檢真係好白痴.
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2010-2-7 18:44

想唔鬧你都唔得。

唔該你用吓個腦，淨係商人嘅話，客量有無日日都 9萬人次？而且西九並唔係咩商業中心，而係天價大陸人豪宅區。個 PK政府呢頭先特首呢頭先至響立法會答問大會死要面地承認香港經濟上有深層次矛盾（其實盲嘅都知唔止淨係經濟上有啦）。但你繼續咁樣做野，淨係顧住方便啲大陸豪客，用香港納稅人嘅錢去貼人地啲國內富豪，咁就可以消解矛盾呀呵？！

It's not enough to discuss the profitability of something in isolation.  You also have to evaluate the cost of not having it and pick the one with lower cost.
快樂牛郎 發表於 2010-2-7 21:13

無高鐵香港會被邊緣化？有你都唔掂啦。做金融中心唔夠上海砌；做旅遊滴滴尼唔夠上海大、環境唔夠三亞好；司法制度就越來越追得上國內嘅水平！對阿爺來講，你香港只不過係一粒墨屎咁細，但又成日嘈嘈閉嘅國際櫥窗來喳。

其實香港人一啲都唔反對高鐵嘅概念，但明明有條平一半嘅錦上路方案，你個不該政府卻一意孤行、妄顧民意咁要敗納稅人啲錢來貼國內有錢佬。呢個先係民怨民憤嘅來源。

-力

kipposhi

But would it save you any money in the long run if it's privatized?

If you want more roads and highways, who will pay for them?
If demands for oil pick up and gas prices move up again, car drivers  ...
快樂牛郎 發表於 2010-2-7 20:59

If it is privatized, I don't have to subsidize those sky train and bus passengers.

The tax on gasoline is a way to pay for the cost of roads and highways

Right, if price of gasoline moves up again, car drivers will have to spend more.  But this is the choice of car drivers.  Car drivers can reduce the use of car if they think the gasoline price is too high for them.  (The privatized translink is still an available option for those car drivers.)  Moreover, when the gasoline price goes up now, car drivers will have to subsidize the translink's cost of gasoline price.  This means the car drivers are taxed twice.