4 ms·

Here in Germany you will sometimes read about discussions on making public transport free, making it a completely public utility. I’d be more than happy to pay

Here in Germany you will sometimes read about discussions on making public transport free, making it a completely public utility. I’d be more than happy to pay taxes for that.

jariel 6y ago
'Totally free' is usually a bad idea because the asymmetries inherent in the system are multiplied. The OP argument 'everyone uses it' is also not super rational argument either on it's face - we all 'use food' and 'water' but we pay for those - the former in market terms, and the later is socialized on some level but still paid for by individuals on a usage basis. 1) You'd be happy to have people in villages and in the countryside pay for your transportation, who wouldn't? It's not fair or ideal, to have some people's tax money pushed heavily into systems that don't benefit them. 2) When things are 'free' we tend to use them in a way that does not reflect their true cost. Imagine if toilet paper were 'free' for everyone. We'd probably use a lot more of it, unnecessarily so. The issue with metros is the intense capital costs and de facto monopoly status. If there were 20 metros too choose from we wouldn't even think of socializing them, you'd just have to 'pay for it' literally like everything else. The 'Strategic Advantage' in the metro is that it's actually a very efficient way to move people, but those efficiencies may not be realizable without subsidy. So instead of 'free' - a reasonable solution might be to subsidize expansion while requiring regular Ops to be paid for out of revenue. Some investment in urban facilities is warranted vis-a-vis the countryside due to the big upside i.e. a large bit of social/industrial gain can be had by government investment that could not be had otherwise.
- mgerullis 6y ago
  > 1) You'd be happy to have people in villages and in the countryside pay for your transportation, who wouldn't? It's not fair or ideal, to have some people's tax money pushed heavily into systems that don't benefit them. I know this is not the case in the US but here, it is common to have public transport on the country side as well to some degree. Most villages have bus transport. Yes, there is a lot more in the city but it grows with density. > 2) When things are 'free' we tend to use them in a way that does not reflect their true cost. Imagine if toilet paper were 'free' for everyone. We'd probably use a lot more of it, unnecessarily so. I do not think there is such thing as an excessive/unnecessary use of public transport when the alternative is to use a car which pollutes the planet. I cannot imagine using the tram in cases where it would be unnecessary, but maybe thats just me. If it is in the interest of the people to get rid of cars, offering public transport at no cost is not so far fetched, considering the amounts of money we will have to spend to combat carbon in the air and are spending on road systems.
  - dsnr 6y ago
    > it is common to have public transport on the country side as well to some degree. Most villages have bus transport. I don‘t think it‘s fair to compare running a bus line on pre-existing roads to maintaining and extending a subway network. People living in big cities already have the advantage of better jobs and much better pay, so I think it‘s fair to expect them to pay for their own transport. Those who choose to live or better said not leave the countryside do it by taking a risk of a harder life yet with maybe more satisfaction in some ways. In this context, I think it’s not justifiable to burden them with supporting the city people when it‘s clear they will get zero benefit out of it.
    - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
      There are subsidies that flow in both directions. People in the countryside pay taxes that go to public transit in cities. People in cities pay taxes that go to large agricultural subsidies. Even in terms of infrastructure, I would bet that rural communities get a net subsidy. There are often government subsidies to ensure coverage in rural areas: postal service, telephone, internet, power, etc.
    - mgerullis 6y ago
      > I don‘t think it‘s fair to compare running a bus line on pre-existing roads to maintaining and extending a subway network. Yet, it is. Both have the same purpose on different scales and environments. > People living in big cities already have the advantage of better jobs and much better pay I would argue that this is the case only for some professions, not all. Outside of white-collar work there is little difference in wages, however that is exactly the demographic which would benefit most from this. May it be the bus or the subway, getting around should be possible to all.
      - dsnr 6y ago
        > Outside of white-collar work there is little difference in wages As someone who lives in Germany I can say this is extremely innacurate. ALL jobs pay better in large german cities, to account for the higher cost of living. > May it be the bus or the subway, getting around should be possible to all. You are spinning this in the wrong direction. I never argued that some people shouldn’t have access to public transport, just that people who stay away from large cities shouldn’t be forced to pay for the comfort and privileges of those living there. I’m sure small rural communities or even medium sized towns and cities can afford to pay for their own bus lines. Living in a large city has its disadvantages, and one of them is cashing out for the train ticket, out of those fat paychecks.
- b3orn 6y ago
  I think these are all really bad analogies. I doubt people will make "unnecessary" trips using public transportation just because it's free. Most people that already use it have some kind of subscription where they pay a fixed amount every week/month/year and don't try to spend as much time as possible using it. I can only see this happening if you make long distance transportation free and suddenly people go on day trips every weekend.
- futurix 6y ago
  At least in Germany public transport reaches into very deep countryside and it is used widely everywhere. This is certainly not about just supporting urban transportation.

Here in Germany you will sometimes read about discussions on making public transport free, making it a completely public utility. I’d be more than happy to pay taxes for that.

jariel 6y ago

'Totally free' is usually a bad idea because the asymmetries inherent in the system are multiplied. The OP argument 'everyone uses it' is also not super rational argument either on it's face - we all 'use food' and 'water' but we pay for those - the former in market terms, and the later is socialized on some level but still paid for by individuals on a usage basis. 1) You'd be happy to have people in villages and in the countryside pay for your transportation, who wouldn't? It's not fair or ideal, to have some people's tax money pushed heavily into systems that don't benefit them. 2) When things are 'free' we tend to use them in a way that does not reflect their true cost. Imagine if toilet paper were 'free' for everyone. We'd probably use a lot more of it, unnecessarily so. The issue with metros is the intense capital costs and de facto monopoly status. If there were 20 metros too choose from we wouldn't even think of socializing them, you'd just have to 'pay for it' literally like everything else. The 'Strategic Advantage' in the metro is that it's actually a very efficient way to move people, but those efficiencies may not be realizable without subsidy. So instead of 'free' - a reasonable solution might be to subsidize expansion while requiring regular Ops to be paid for out of revenue. Some investment in urban facilities is warranted vis-a-vis the countryside due to the big upside i.e. a large bit of social/industrial gain can be had by government investment that could not be had otherwise.

mgerullis 6y ago
> 1) You'd be happy to have people in villages and in the countryside pay for your transportation, who wouldn't? It's not fair or ideal, to have some people's tax money pushed heavily into systems that don't benefit them. I know this is not the case in the US but here, it is common to have public transport on the country side as well to some degree. Most villages have bus transport. Yes, there is a lot more in the city but it grows with density. > 2) When things are 'free' we tend to use them in a way that does not reflect their true cost. Imagine if toilet paper were 'free' for everyone. We'd probably use a lot more of it, unnecessarily so. I do not think there is such thing as an excessive/unnecessary use of public transport when the alternative is to use a car which pollutes the planet. I cannot imagine using the tram in cases where it would be unnecessary, but maybe thats just me. If it is in the interest of the people to get rid of cars, offering public transport at no cost is not so far fetched, considering the amounts of money we will have to spend to combat carbon in the air and are spending on road systems.
- dsnr 6y ago
  > it is common to have public transport on the country side as well to some degree. Most villages have bus transport. I don‘t think it‘s fair to compare running a bus line on pre-existing roads to maintaining and extending a subway network. People living in big cities already have the advantage of better jobs and much better pay, so I think it‘s fair to expect them to pay for their own transport. Those who choose to live or better said not leave the countryside do it by taking a risk of a harder life yet with maybe more satisfaction in some ways. In this context, I think it’s not justifiable to burden them with supporting the city people when it‘s clear they will get zero benefit out of it.
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    There are subsidies that flow in both directions. People in the countryside pay taxes that go to public transit in cities. People in cities pay taxes that go to large agricultural subsidies. Even in terms of infrastructure, I would bet that rural communities get a net subsidy. There are often government subsidies to ensure coverage in rural areas: postal service, telephone, internet, power, etc.
  - mgerullis 6y ago
    > I don‘t think it‘s fair to compare running a bus line on pre-existing roads to maintaining and extending a subway network. Yet, it is. Both have the same purpose on different scales and environments. > People living in big cities already have the advantage of better jobs and much better pay I would argue that this is the case only for some professions, not all. Outside of white-collar work there is little difference in wages, however that is exactly the demographic which would benefit most from this. May it be the bus or the subway, getting around should be possible to all.
    - dsnr 6y ago
      > Outside of white-collar work there is little difference in wages As someone who lives in Germany I can say this is extremely innacurate. ALL jobs pay better in large german cities, to account for the higher cost of living. > May it be the bus or the subway, getting around should be possible to all. You are spinning this in the wrong direction. I never argued that some people shouldn’t have access to public transport, just that people who stay away from large cities shouldn’t be forced to pay for the comfort and privileges of those living there. I’m sure small rural communities or even medium sized towns and cities can afford to pay for their own bus lines. Living in a large city has its disadvantages, and one of them is cashing out for the train ticket, out of those fat paychecks.
b3orn 6y ago
I think these are all really bad analogies. I doubt people will make "unnecessary" trips using public transportation just because it's free. Most people that already use it have some kind of subscription where they pay a fixed amount every week/month/year and don't try to spend as much time as possible using it. I can only see this happening if you make long distance transportation free and suddenly people go on day trips every weekend.
futurix 6y ago
At least in Germany public transport reaches into very deep countryside and it is used widely everywhere. This is certainly not about just supporting urban transportation.