4 ms·

Get on a bus in the middle of the day and count the number of people paying. I.e those not on benefits, over the age of 18, under the age of 60 etc. Now count

Get on a bus in the middle of the day and count the number of people paying. I.e those not on benefits, over the age of 18, under the age of 60 etc. Now count how long the bus idles while people line up so the driver can validate their ticket / check they tapped in on their Oyster card. Now add in all of the infrastructure and staff required to collect fees and account for them. Then add in all of the external costs of charging for public transport (more cars, less productivity) The argument for charging isn’t that strong.

anticensor 7y ago
Cost/benefit matrix: Long distance: Paid Urban FDB: Free Urban ADB: Paid
chumali 7y ago
Have you even bothered to check the figures? You mention Oyster cards so I'll assume you're talking about London in which case the operator (TfL) clearly states that "Fares are the single largest source of our income (projected to be 47% in 2019/20)". [0] This income more than covers the operational costs, with the difference being used to support new infrastructure projects and upgrades such as the Elizabeth Line (as well as concessions for students, the elderly, etc). Clearly there is a very strong argument for charging. [0] https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/how-we-are-funded https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/how-we-ar...
- crispyporkbites 7y ago
  Right but how much of those operating costs go away if you don’t have to charge? And let’s say you scope this only to buses (which are used less by commuters, and have real impacts on the environment) Honestly I think not charging for buses in London would net out positively financially, and be better for all involved (faster, less cars on the road, easier to design buses for disabled access and prams etc.)
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    Why don't any of the agencies that ever investigated this question come to the same conclusion?
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  What percentage of operating costs are paid for with fares has basically nothing to do with what percentage should be paid for with fares. If paying 100% with taxes results in lower costs per rider because you don't have to pay for fare collection costs and higher use of public transport because there is less friction (which benefits even those who don't use it via lower traffic and pollution etc.), why shouldn't we do that instead?
  - chumali 7y ago
    Fare collection in London is almost frictionless. Almost all public transport can be paid for with contactless debit/credit or prepaid cards. Drivers have no requirement to verify fares and all stations have self-service terminals. Although the administration cost is not zero, it is almost certainly negligible enough that moving to a taxpayer funded model would increase these costs. This is particularly true given that transport budgets are operated at the regional level and would require the introduction of new regional taxes rather than simply relying on exiting tax revenue. (The politics of passing any new tax legislation would be a monumental hurdle in the first instance). Then there is the question of whether a broad tax is more equitable then the current model. I fail to see how this could be the case given the current system retains the price signal and through a system of concessions ensures that those who most benefit from the provision (e.g. professional working in the inner city) contribute the most and effectively subsidise fares for the rest of society.
    - crispyporkbites 7y ago
      Actually bus drivers can’t move the bus until all passengers have tapped in. Then you have all the ticket machines, barriers, stations, staff etc that would be completely unnecessary. The only real bonus of collecting fares is that tfl acts as a treasury with millions of pounds in funds to invest.
      - afarrell 7y ago
        > Actually bus drivers can’t move the bus until all passengers have tapped in. I have observed that this is false in London at least 30 times.
bradly 7y ago
Similarly, my city library was spending much more collecting fines than the fines brought in, so they got rid of them.
- purple_ducks 7y ago
  So bad behaviour goes unpunished due to economic upside? Not something I'd want. What do they do when there's an increase in bad behaviour which was previously addressed by fines?
  - bradly 7y ago
    > So bad behaviour goes unpunished due to economic upside? No, that I didn't say that. I said there are no fines. You cannot check anything out if you have something over due and after a certain number of days it goes to collections. The library doesn't deal with fines. Which part of that policy would you be negatively affected by?
- perl4ever 7y ago
  Surely the cost-benefit analysis of the fines would need to include the effect they have on the availability, loss, and/or destruction of the books. If you are being sarcastic in order to make that point, that may be too subtle to communicate with most people that don't think of it on their own.
  - bradly 7y ago
    I am not being sarcastic. It has been great in out city. For some reason everyone outside the city tries to jump through a lot of hoops on why not charging fines to citizens is a bad idea. You people are interested in availability issues I suggest you reach out to the library and ask if it has been a problem. The number 619-236-5800.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      The actual outcomes are irrelevant to my point, which is that you need to consider the effect on people's behavior when evaluating a policy (prospectively or retrospectively). You made it sound as if this was not done.
DanBC 7y ago
> I.e those not on benefits Why do you think people claiming benefits get free transport?

anticensor 7y ago

Cost/benefit matrix: Long distance: Paid Urban FDB: Free Urban ADB: Paid

chumali 7y ago

Have you even bothered to check the figures? You mention Oyster cards so I'll assume you're talking about London in which case the operator (TfL) clearly states that "Fares are the single largest source of our income (projected to be 47% in 2019/20)". [0] This income more than covers the operational costs, with the difference being used to support new infrastructure projects and upgrades such as the Elizabeth Line (as well as concessions for students, the elderly, etc). Clearly there is a very strong argument for charging. [0] https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/how-we-are-funded https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/how-we-ar...

crispyporkbites 7y ago
Right but how much of those operating costs go away if you don’t have to charge? And let’s say you scope this only to buses (which are used less by commuters, and have real impacts on the environment) Honestly I think not charging for buses in London would net out positively financially, and be better for all involved (faster, less cars on the road, easier to design buses for disabled access and prams etc.)
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Why don't any of the agencies that ever investigated this question come to the same conclusion?
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
What percentage of operating costs are paid for with fares has basically nothing to do with what percentage should be paid for with fares. If paying 100% with taxes results in lower costs per rider because you don't have to pay for fare collection costs and higher use of public transport because there is less friction (which benefits even those who don't use it via lower traffic and pollution etc.), why shouldn't we do that instead?
- chumali 7y ago
  Fare collection in London is almost frictionless. Almost all public transport can be paid for with contactless debit/credit or prepaid cards. Drivers have no requirement to verify fares and all stations have self-service terminals. Although the administration cost is not zero, it is almost certainly negligible enough that moving to a taxpayer funded model would increase these costs. This is particularly true given that transport budgets are operated at the regional level and would require the introduction of new regional taxes rather than simply relying on exiting tax revenue. (The politics of passing any new tax legislation would be a monumental hurdle in the first instance). Then there is the question of whether a broad tax is more equitable then the current model. I fail to see how this could be the case given the current system retains the price signal and through a system of concessions ensures that those who most benefit from the provision (e.g. professional working in the inner city) contribute the most and effectively subsidise fares for the rest of society.
  - crispyporkbites 7y ago
    Actually bus drivers can’t move the bus until all passengers have tapped in. Then you have all the ticket machines, barriers, stations, staff etc that would be completely unnecessary. The only real bonus of collecting fares is that tfl acts as a treasury with millions of pounds in funds to invest.
    - afarrell 7y ago
      > Actually bus drivers can’t move the bus until all passengers have tapped in. I have observed that this is false in London at least 30 times.

bradly 7y ago

Similarly, my city library was spending much more collecting fines than the fines brought in, so they got rid of them.

purple_ducks 7y ago
So bad behaviour goes unpunished due to economic upside? Not something I'd want. What do they do when there's an increase in bad behaviour which was previously addressed by fines?
- bradly 7y ago
  > So bad behaviour goes unpunished due to economic upside? No, that I didn't say that. I said there are no fines. You cannot check anything out if you have something over due and after a certain number of days it goes to collections. The library doesn't deal with fines. Which part of that policy would you be negatively affected by?
perl4ever 7y ago
Surely the cost-benefit analysis of the fines would need to include the effect they have on the availability, loss, and/or destruction of the books. If you are being sarcastic in order to make that point, that may be too subtle to communicate with most people that don't think of it on their own.
- bradly 7y ago
  I am not being sarcastic. It has been great in out city. For some reason everyone outside the city tries to jump through a lot of hoops on why not charging fines to citizens is a bad idea. You people are interested in availability issues I suggest you reach out to the library and ask if it has been a problem. The number 619-236-5800.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    The actual outcomes are irrelevant to my point, which is that you need to consider the effect on people's behavior when evaluating a policy (prospectively or retrospectively). You made it sound as if this was not done.

DanBC 7y ago

> I.e those not on benefits Why do you think people claiming benefits get free transport?