While what you say is true in principle, in practice it would quickly translate into deteriorating service.
Public transit is and should of course always be mostly tax funded, but a small fare can add money in the system, it adds demands from users and a sense of responsibility for the suppliers.
The fare is always much cheaper than operating a car and its easy to have discount programs for those that need it.
Enforcement can be as easy as random checks, all the fancy infrastructure is not really needed although for underground systems its good to have a little barrier for entry.
I can afford a car just fine but I don’t want to spend my money on it just to get to work.
The real measure of the affluence and quality of life in a city is how large a portion of the wealthy take transit. The higher the better.
Idk, every public transit system I've been on operated on barely above honor system for fares. Nearly every time someone gets on a bus where I live and their card doesn't work, the driver let's them on anyways and they just shrug. Seattle's monorail system doesn't have any apparent enforcement from what I could tell (I can't speak for their busses, haven't used them in quite awhile).
Most of the systems/employees you mention will be employed or paid for/installed anyways. Do you think that people go to jail or even get anywhere near the DAs desk for a parking ticket? Why would jumping a turnstile be treated different from the legal standpoint.
But it is criminalizing the poor; Someone who isn't paying $2.50 may not have $50, unless they're doing it for the fun. At best you block them from the transit system which stops them from their job, a place to sleep; at worst, it's another fee when they get arrested for something else
But to give a free ticket, you still have to have the enforcement; you still have to use resources from the local government (to collect fines).
If you don't pay for enough enforcement (see NYC, Atlanta, Bart, etc that aren't free and have plenty of broken windows), then you still have a "broken window", only it has cost the system significantly more than your other opportunities, ie, armed security on the trains instead of staring at turnstiles; some positions may even be cheaper than your credit card fees on your profitable customers, less ridership (tourism, can't find card, uber competitor) because of fees and complexities reduces effectiveness of the system.
Points 1-3 are the real investments there and they don't just exist. The other points do indeed exists but with a different workload, which again you could do without. Now the only point forgotten in the other comments is that a small fee, regardless how small, is making the users more responsible - I think at coin-operated shopping carts. But again, you need a level of security anyway, so they could better focus now doing their job: to sort out the disrupters whatever they are - drunks, litterers, vandals.
As a user of free transit, i must disagree. It's great. The first poster isn't just correct in principle, but also practice. And it certainly doesn't deteriorate service. A sense of community ownership/responsibility grows from it not being pay walled.
Yeah I can see how that might work but it’s probably very location/culture dependent.
I have a distinct feeling that in my location there would quickly be loud voices talking about how much of a burden the cost is and the users are freeloading off the “hardworking people of our country” and they should just feel happy with whatever they’re served.
You see this class of argument often when it's pointed out that some issue is handled better in another part of the world; sometimes it seems like a posture of defeatism in the face of evidence that a better way is possible. See also: political polarization as a reason that nothing can ever get better.
Not saying that's how you mean it--I wonder, though, how we go about constructing a better culture? Are we merely victims of the culture we were given? Or are there efforts we can take to change the culture we have for the better? I'm curious what research shows about how cultural attitudes can be changed over time, either for better or worse.
Transit is actually never free, you either pay for it from fares, or from taxes, or a combination thereof.
Since mass transit access is something you can't badly overconsume in a sensible way, nor can you hoard and resell it in meaningful quantities, it does not noticeably suffer from the problems that plague free-to-take physical stuff. If keeping the access infrastructure is expensive, shutting it down and making access free may indeed save money. See how it works e.g. for public parks and city streets; both are toll-free.
> its easy to have discount programs for those that need it.
Actually its not that easy. You need someone to check income threshold (how?), have a separate program to distribute that special fare, monitor for fraud, special fare system, etc. Tons of people that would benefit from cheaper fare end up not having access to it if the way to get that discount ends up being complicated (as many social programs are).
I agree transit should be cheaper, not free, but often cheaper helps everyone and encourage habits to change, even among the middle class.
Sure but don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress.
Cast a wide net, 50% discount for students, municipalities can hook people up with free or discounted passes depending on their municipal tax returns, it can all be automated even.
Some who don’t need discounts will get them and some who need them won’t but they will get better quality of service however. And if they don’t manage to get themselves a discount by any means, if the alternative is buying a car they’re saving anyway.
The absolute amount of money collected isn’t really the point, just that there is some of it and it is a non-negligible portion of the total.
>
The real measure of the affluence and quality of life in a city is how large a portion of the wealthy take transit. The higher the better.
<
I don't think this will actually measure anything but gentrification and how few social services a city offers. Of the wealthy friends I have, the reasons they don't take public transit are always either time or the trash people. Of those categories, I know a few willing to deal with the wasted time to feel good but none willing to deal with the junkies, homeless, or hood crowd. If none of these groups are on your public transit it's either because you priced them out or the region is already hostile enough to keep them out.
Is free transportation going to increase or decrease the number of junkies and homeless, not just on public transportation, but in general? It’s a boon for that crowd that can be piled on top of all the other programs that are argued to help, but have only entrenched that population.
Provide transit cards to those with low income budgeted through programs that are tasked with dealing with social welfare, homelessness, and rehabilitation. Let transit programs stick with transit.
I took public transit most work days using various methods in the Seattle metro area for years. The only one I didn’t frequently use (but did occasionally) were busses in the free ride zone outside of the bus tunnel.
There's nowhere to park in the center of Edinburgh. It's faster and cheaper to take the bus than it is to drive in and then look for a very expensive place to leave the car. And because nearly everyone takes the bus they don't just have awful people on them.
Some of them are toll roads but yes generally the roads are free.
But the difference there is that the roads are usually maintained for industry, commerce, defence or political pressure.
The people can then use them also but that’s almost an afterthought in the system, the roads will be maintained because of moneyed or political interests.
Public transit is just as important for cities but the powerful advocates are missing.
While what you say is true in principle, in practice it would quickly translate into deteriorating service.
Public transit is and should of course always be mostly tax funded, but a small fare can add money in the system, it adds demands from users and a sense of responsibility for the suppliers.
The fare is always much cheaper than operating a car and its easy to have discount programs for those that need it.
Enforcement can be as easy as random checks, all the fancy infrastructure is not really needed although for underground systems its good to have a little barrier for entry.
I can afford a car just fine but I don’t want to spend my money on it just to get to work.
The real measure of the affluence and quality of life in a city is how large a portion of the wealthy take transit. The higher the better.