4 ms·

Why should public transport cost anything at all? I mean, what's the point? You might say the service costs money. It does. The ticket prices never cover that s

by cletus 5y ago

Why should public transport cost anything at all? I mean, what's the point? You might say the service costs money. It does. The ticket prices never cover that so you're already running at a loss. You spend money on enforcement, payment and ticket machines and you reduce usage of the service. But here's the more important point: cars are already subsidized to a huge degree pretty much everywhere through roads, parking, etc. Let's also start by removing free street parking from any area reasonably serviced by public transport. Or just removing it entirely.

joshuaissac 5y ago
> The ticket prices never cover that so you're already running at a loss. London Underground usually runs at a profit. Not entirely from tickets, but also including other sources like advertisement. But ticket revenue is an important part of the income. Public transport also includes privately-owned transport that is run for profit, like private buses and trains, which also make a profit (or go bust).
mellavora 5y ago
That's what Luxembourg did. Works great!
denimnerd42 5y ago
how do you keep people from just riding the train perpetually?
- marcellus23 5y ago
  why would you keep people from doing that? are so many people going to be doing that as to actually cause a problem?
  - denimnerd42 5y ago
    In my area people will ride the commuter train (without paying) for hours and sleep on it. There isn't enough fair enforcement or will to remove them. Makes the train pretty unattractive for its actual purpose. I imagine that issue becoming even worse if it's just free.
    - marcellus23 5y ago
      People do that in my city too — they're homeless people who don't have anywhere else to go. The solution is to give them housing and jobs. Until that happens, I'm okay with them sleeping on the train if they need to.
      - denimnerd42 5y ago
        and for that reason I'll keep my car. The solution to homelessness is not to degrade the living standard for everyone else.
        marcellus23 5y ago
        No one said it was. You asked how to prevent homeless people from sleeping on trains — the answer is to give them places to sleep.
        denimnerd42 5y ago
        no. it’s to enforce the rules on the train. there are some homeless that will refuse government provided housing no matter what.
        malermeister 5y ago
        That's just not true. The problem is that government housing is so terrible that sleeping on the street is preferable to some. Public housing in Austria is high quality, cheap and plentiful, with two-thirds of Viennese residents living in it. Coincidentally, homelessness is a non-issue in Austria compared to the US (based on my experience living in the Bay for 10 and in Austria for 20 years). See this video for what government provided housing could be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6DBKoWbtjE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6DBKoWbtjE
        denimnerd42 5y ago
        Looks like one development you need to be super connected to get into…
richwater 5y ago
Because people don't value free things. It's why public restrooms are always disgusting.
- m463 5y ago
  I remember having an electric car when they were new. Some places offered free electric car charging, and there was always someone parked there abusing it. Meanwhile with only the most nominal cost, people would make better use of the resource allowing it to become available to others.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > It's why public restrooms are always disgusting. Not really. It's not a question of value that causes public restrooms to be less pleasant, but simply one of cleaning frequency. Most people clean their own private restrooms/bathrooms/toilet (or have them cleaned) reasonably frequently. Increase the usage load for a public facility and you'd expect it to need to cleaning more frequently than a private one. And so, one does indeed find public facilities with sensible cleaning intervals that are often no worse and sometimes better than private ones. Most humans also have a somewhat instinctive distaste for urinating or defacating in a context where they can smell another human being (even one's own family!). Without very good ventilation, it's hard for a well-used public facility to avoid this, and that adds to the sense of "eergh, it's disgusting!" This is an issue, but again not one of "valuing free things". The worst public restrooms I can think of tend to be the most lightly used, where it's hard to justify the cost of sufficiently regular cleaning, and things just get unpleasant, again without any question of values or cost-of-use.
jltsiren 5y ago
Free public transport means worse service. In the long term, subsidies < subsidies + fares, so there would be less money to fund the operations. At the same time, many people who would otherwise walk/cycle or not take the trip at all would be using public transport, and the reduced service would be crowded. Because the quality of public transport would be low, people who can afford it would prefer driving. That in turn would lower the subsidies, because people are always looking for ways to lower taxes and reduce public spending in services they don't need. Sometimes the fares are also higher than costs to discourage using public transport, because capacity is limited and increasing it is effectively impossible. London zone 1 is a good example of this. People who won't use public transport will walk/cycle or not take the trip at all. They won't switch to driving in any significant numbers, because that would be physically impossible.
Jenda_ 5y ago
> Why should public transport cost anything at all? I mean, what's the point? Because by subsidizing public transport, you are discouraging people from options that save the resources used by transportation even more: for example partial home-office, riding to work by bike, or moving closer to work || working closer to home.

by cletus 5y ago

joshuaissac 5y ago

> The ticket prices never cover that so you're already running at a loss. London Underground usually runs at a profit. Not entirely from tickets, but also including other sources like advertisement. But ticket revenue is an important part of the income. Public transport also includes privately-owned transport that is run for profit, like private buses and trains, which also make a profit (or go bust).

mellavora 5y ago

That's what Luxembourg did. Works great!

denimnerd42 5y ago

how do you keep people from just riding the train perpetually?

marcellus23 5y ago
why would you keep people from doing that? are so many people going to be doing that as to actually cause a problem?
- denimnerd42 5y ago
  In my area people will ride the commuter train (without paying) for hours and sleep on it. There isn't enough fair enforcement or will to remove them. Makes the train pretty unattractive for its actual purpose. I imagine that issue becoming even worse if it's just free.
  - marcellus23 5y ago
    People do that in my city too — they're homeless people who don't have anywhere else to go. The solution is to give them housing and jobs. Until that happens, I'm okay with them sleeping on the train if they need to.
    - denimnerd42 5y ago
      and for that reason I'll keep my car. The solution to homelessness is not to degrade the living standard for everyone else.
      - marcellus23 5y ago
        No one said it was. You asked how to prevent homeless people from sleeping on trains — the answer is to give them places to sleep.
        denimnerd42 5y ago
        no. it’s to enforce the rules on the train. there are some homeless that will refuse government provided housing no matter what.
        malermeister 5y ago
        That's just not true. The problem is that government housing is so terrible that sleeping on the street is preferable to some. Public housing in Austria is high quality, cheap and plentiful, with two-thirds of Viennese residents living in it. Coincidentally, homelessness is a non-issue in Austria compared to the US (based on my experience living in the Bay for 10 and in Austria for 20 years). See this video for what government provided housing could be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6DBKoWbtjE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6DBKoWbtjE
        denimnerd42 5y ago
        Looks like one development you need to be super connected to get into…

richwater 5y ago

Because people don't value free things. It's why public restrooms are always disgusting.

m463 5y ago
I remember having an electric car when they were new. Some places offered free electric car charging, and there was always someone parked there abusing it. Meanwhile with only the most nominal cost, people would make better use of the resource allowing it to become available to others.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> It's why public restrooms are always disgusting. Not really. It's not a question of value that causes public restrooms to be less pleasant, but simply one of cleaning frequency. Most people clean their own private restrooms/bathrooms/toilet (or have them cleaned) reasonably frequently. Increase the usage load for a public facility and you'd expect it to need to cleaning more frequently than a private one. And so, one does indeed find public facilities with sensible cleaning intervals that are often no worse and sometimes better than private ones. Most humans also have a somewhat instinctive distaste for urinating or defacating in a context where they can smell another human being (even one's own family!). Without very good ventilation, it's hard for a well-used public facility to avoid this, and that adds to the sense of "eergh, it's disgusting!" This is an issue, but again not one of "valuing free things". The worst public restrooms I can think of tend to be the most lightly used, where it's hard to justify the cost of sufficiently regular cleaning, and things just get unpleasant, again without any question of values or cost-of-use.

jltsiren 5y ago

Free public transport means worse service. In the long term, subsidies < subsidies + fares, so there would be less money to fund the operations. At the same time, many people who would otherwise walk/cycle or not take the trip at all would be using public transport, and the reduced service would be crowded. Because the quality of public transport would be low, people who can afford it would prefer driving. That in turn would lower the subsidies, because people are always looking for ways to lower taxes and reduce public spending in services they don't need. Sometimes the fares are also higher than costs to discourage using public transport, because capacity is limited and increasing it is effectively impossible. London zone 1 is a good example of this. People who won't use public transport will walk/cycle or not take the trip at all. They won't switch to driving in any significant numbers, because that would be physically impossible.

Jenda_ 5y ago

> Why should public transport cost anything at all? I mean, what's the point? Because by subsidizing public transport, you are discouraging people from options that save the resources used by transportation even more: for example partial home-office, riding to work by bike, or moving closer to work || working closer to home.