5 ms·

> One price for the whole family Why not make it free? It's a public service after all, and it's hard to "abuse" transportation like one can use "too much" fre

> One price for the whole family Why not make it free? It's a public service after all, and it's hard to "abuse" transportation like one can use "too much" free water/electricity.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
Most public transit systems are already bankrupt and have to be propped up by taxes collected from other services. Making it free will most likely not increase ridership and will almost definitely make the quality of service lower.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  As you have pointed out, public subsidies are already the main financing source for public utilities. If you're worried about bankruptcy, you may be worried that ticketing/controlling equipment and personnel has a substantial cost for transportation agencies (also: environmental cost). French law already has obligation for your employer to pay (at least parts of) your travel fees. You could also have a tax on hotel rooms and airbnbs for tourists to help finance it. There's already cities across the globe practicing free public transport and so far i haven't heard any complaining or finding unexpected difficulties. Also, specifically about quality of service, we could argue having a service orientation driven by workers and users (a sort of coop if you like) would yield better results than what David Graeber refers to as "manageurial feudalism" sucking public services dry through dehumanizing micromanagement techniques, absurd salaries for the higher-ups, and various forms of corruption such as "private-public partnerships".
- Tijdreiziger 5y ago
  > Most public transit systems are already bankrupt and have to be propped up by taxes collected from other services. Hold on, this is a pretty odd way to frame a public service. By this logic, you could equally say: - Most road systems are already bankrupt and have to be propped up by taxes collected from other services. - Most schools are already bankrupt and have to be propped up by taxes collected from other services. - Most fire departments are already bankrupt and have to be propped up by taxes collected from other services.
mongol 5y ago
Every passenger wears on the system. It is fair that you pay a part of things you use.
- bmicraft 5y ago
  Every road user also uses roads paid for by every tax payer so there's that.
  - alibarber 5y ago
    But everyone uses roads, driver or not. The food in the store was not grown there, your mail was probably brought along the road at some point…
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    Well that's good, isn't it? I mean if i had to choose between my taxes financing public roads/trains, and my taxes financing cops to beat up my neighbors and silence political dissent, i would without any form of hesitation choose the former. Unfortunately, we don't live in a democracy so there's not exactly a choice beyond what brand/color of corrupt overlord we'd like to see ruin our lives for the next 5 years.
  - Jenda_ 5y ago
    In .cz, we have gasoline taxed heavily, with the rationale that it pays for roads. Additionally, highways have toll (for all cars) and major roads have tolls for heavy cars (as they damage more). And a tax is paid for every car used for business purposes (company car, contractors etc.). All of this combined indeed almost covers the expenses of building and maintaining roads. Unfortunately, it does not cover any negative externalities, such as the environmental ones.
- nmeofthestate 5y ago
  Re the other reply: this'll vary by country, but the UK effectively charges a road-usage tax (fuel duty) that nets about twice as much (20Bn) as the annual spending on roads (warning - source = two minutes of googling)
bluGill 5y ago
Because then politicians will rob the budget for whatever their pet project is. Fares should at least cover all operating costs (including maintenance), so that politicians can't slowly kill the system via neglect (they will kill it by others means, but at least budget won't be one)
- southerntofu 5y ago
  How is that so? Politicians have a way to destroy/privatize public service whether it's self-funded or not, just like they destroy/ban private associations doing too much of a job for social justice (such as armed bands expropriating the bourgeoisie to feed popular districts, which was common throughout the 60-80s). Famously, french social security (healthcare), unemployment and pensions are more or less self-funded (they all have their own line/column on taxes papers), yet the previous 3-5 governments have been relentlessly reforming those essential public services in order to render them useless. It's also important to note that in most instances of such reforms, the government will point out some money is missing to fund the service, which : - is only partially true, as insane amounts are spent for their disserving bureaucracies, managerial class, and control apparatus, all of which we would do better without - is still partially true, but benefits fraud represents in all cases less than 1% of participation fraud, where the biggest companies are the ones evading to pay their dues... so if law enforcement were to crack down on big corporations fraud instead of political dissent, the problem would be solved very easily
  - bluGill 5y ago
    You are correct, but if the service is self funded via operational fees it is better able to stand for longer - which gives a chance that whoever is harming them will be voted out and someone else will do better. Though we have ample experience in the US of long term neglect from both parties, the more you are self funded the harder it is to do that. If you are not self funded as soon as someone cuts your budget you have to cut service, but if you are self funded you can ride out those winds better. (though COVID like things will harm you no matter what) There is no great answer here, but I still believe that self funding of operating costs is the best answer.

> One price for the whole family Why not make it free? It's a public service after all, and it's hard to "abuse" transportation like one can use "too much" free water/electricity.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

VWWHFSfQ 5y ago

Most public transit systems are already bankrupt and have to be propped up by taxes collected from other services. Making it free will most likely not increase ridership and will almost definitely make the quality of service lower.

southerntofu 5y ago
As you have pointed out, public subsidies are already the main financing source for public utilities. If you're worried about bankruptcy, you may be worried that ticketing/controlling equipment and personnel has a substantial cost for transportation agencies (also: environmental cost). French law already has obligation for your employer to pay (at least parts of) your travel fees. You could also have a tax on hotel rooms and airbnbs for tourists to help finance it. There's already cities across the globe practicing free public transport and so far i haven't heard any complaining or finding unexpected difficulties. Also, specifically about quality of service, we could argue having a service orientation driven by workers and users (a sort of coop if you like) would yield better results than what David Graeber refers to as "manageurial feudalism" sucking public services dry through dehumanizing micromanagement techniques, absurd salaries for the higher-ups, and various forms of corruption such as "private-public partnerships".
Tijdreiziger 5y ago
> Most public transit systems are already bankrupt and have to be propped up by taxes collected from other services. Hold on, this is a pretty odd way to frame a public service. By this logic, you could equally say: - Most road systems are already bankrupt and have to be propped up by taxes collected from other services. - Most schools are already bankrupt and have to be propped up by taxes collected from other services. - Most fire departments are already bankrupt and have to be propped up by taxes collected from other services.

mongol 5y ago

Every passenger wears on the system. It is fair that you pay a part of things you use.

bmicraft 5y ago
Every road user also uses roads paid for by every tax payer so there's that.
- alibarber 5y ago
  But everyone uses roads, driver or not. The food in the store was not grown there, your mail was probably brought along the road at some point…
- southerntofu 5y ago
  Well that's good, isn't it? I mean if i had to choose between my taxes financing public roads/trains, and my taxes financing cops to beat up my neighbors and silence political dissent, i would without any form of hesitation choose the former. Unfortunately, we don't live in a democracy so there's not exactly a choice beyond what brand/color of corrupt overlord we'd like to see ruin our lives for the next 5 years.
- Jenda_ 5y ago
  In .cz, we have gasoline taxed heavily, with the rationale that it pays for roads. Additionally, highways have toll (for all cars) and major roads have tolls for heavy cars (as they damage more). And a tax is paid for every car used for business purposes (company car, contractors etc.). All of this combined indeed almost covers the expenses of building and maintaining roads. Unfortunately, it does not cover any negative externalities, such as the environmental ones.
nmeofthestate 5y ago
Re the other reply: this'll vary by country, but the UK effectively charges a road-usage tax (fuel duty) that nets about twice as much (20Bn) as the annual spending on roads (warning - source = two minutes of googling)

bluGill 5y ago

Because then politicians will rob the budget for whatever their pet project is. Fares should at least cover all operating costs (including maintenance), so that politicians can't slowly kill the system via neglect (they will kill it by others means, but at least budget won't be one)

southerntofu 5y ago
How is that so? Politicians have a way to destroy/privatize public service whether it's self-funded or not, just like they destroy/ban private associations doing too much of a job for social justice (such as armed bands expropriating the bourgeoisie to feed popular districts, which was common throughout the 60-80s). Famously, french social security (healthcare), unemployment and pensions are more or less self-funded (they all have their own line/column on taxes papers), yet the previous 3-5 governments have been relentlessly reforming those essential public services in order to render them useless. It's also important to note that in most instances of such reforms, the government will point out some money is missing to fund the service, which : - is only partially true, as insane amounts are spent for their disserving bureaucracies, managerial class, and control apparatus, all of which we would do better without - is still partially true, but benefits fraud represents in all cases less than 1% of participation fraud, where the biggest companies are the ones evading to pay their dues... so if law enforcement were to crack down on big corporations fraud instead of political dissent, the problem would be solved very easily
- bluGill 5y ago
  You are correct, but if the service is self funded via operational fees it is better able to stand for longer - which gives a chance that whoever is harming them will be voted out and someone else will do better. Though we have ample experience in the US of long term neglect from both parties, the more you are self funded the harder it is to do that. If you are not self funded as soon as someone cuts your budget you have to cut service, but if you are self funded you can ride out those winds better. (though COVID like things will harm you no matter what) There is no great answer here, but I still believe that self funding of operating costs is the best answer.