5 ms·

yes, free inevitably means unvalued and creates distortions in markets that lead to unintended consequences (like homeless people using trains as makeshift hous

yes, free inevitably means unvalued and creates distortions in markets that lead to unintended consequences (like homeless people using trains as makeshift housing). in contrast, market competition is one of the reasons cited by the tokyo transit system for why they're so good. also, economists are capable of estimating the ratio of private good to public good for a transit system, and we can simply apportion the funding of the network accordingly. if 40% of the value of transit accrues to the public, then pay that part out of taxes and set fares so that they pay for the other 60%. i'd rather have a system that responds in some proportion to market signals than one that is entirely immune to them. in LA, they're trying to make transit free, and while i'd benefit from this, i oppose the initiative on these grounds.

throwaway743 4y ago
Have you used Tokyo's multi corp transit? It can be a real headache. Also, the MTA is private (mostly) and the subway costs a fare, yet there's homeless folks everywhere on the trains. Implementing a fare !== homeless people not setting up shop in subway cars or on the platforms. * the homeless and housing situation is a deeper issue with many variables. Just pointing at the claim that was made
- clairity 4y ago
  my experience of tokyo was as a tourist some 10 years ago, so i can't speak to the breadth of the transit experience there. i just remember being very impressed with the quantity and punctuality of trains and don't remember any homelessness. that's not to say i saw no homelessness in tokyo, but it seemed tiny compared to LA. i also rode the shinkansen between tokyo and osaka, which felt almost like flying, in contrast to amtrak's acela train on the east coast, which feels only slightly faster for a few short periods.
  - throwaway743 4y ago
    Agreed on the impressive quality and timeliness of the subway trains. Seen homeless in Tokyo (not on the subway or at least it wasn't apparent) and it was a culture shock to see that those roughing it still took their shoes off and left them outside of their sleeping areas, and kept their areas neat/didn't obstruct space outside of what they needed. My point was private companies/fares won't prevent homeless people from staying off the subways or other unexpected results that are assumed to come with "free". MTA is a perfect example of that.
    - clairity 4y ago
      LA's metro, like MTA, also currently has fares and doesn't keep out the homeless, as fare enforcement here is a complete joke, so i hear what you're saying. i think the point was that being unvalued would mean that people would be even less likely to do or say anything about it, and it spirals into an even worse tragedy of the commons situation (the unintended consequences). i'd personally like to see metro raise base fares, and provide larger discounts to lower income riders via their LIFE program to offset that potentially regressive burden. in the best of times (before covid) fares only covered about 20-30% of operating costs, i believe. use that money to implement better service (more and more punctual trains), more social/community officers to help the homeless, peace officers on the trains themselves (currently they mostly just walk around stations every once in a while), and more rigorous cleaning and general maintenance. this all needs to be coordinated with getting housing and services to homeless folks, removing roadblocks to density along transit corridors, and emphasizing multi-mobility (like converting street parking to bus & bike lanes).
- coryrc 4y ago
  Huh? The Pasmo card can be used for basically all transit in Tokyo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasmo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasmo Every train and tram is on schedule. In what way is it a "real headache"?
  - throwaway743 4y ago
    If you don't have to budget or care to, then sure it's not. Otherwise, paying for a fare only to have to pay another to transfer between the different train company lines is a headache.
7952 4y ago
Surely the free road system is the most serious distortion in the market. And free access to public transport could help rebalance that. We may end up with unintended consequences, but that is likely to be better than the negative consequences we live with right now.
- clairity 4y ago
  yes, we should better price in the cost of free roads rather than try to rebalance by making public transit free. i'd suggest making registration fees even more contingent on length and weight of vehicles, on a superlinearly escalating scale (e.g., some folks suggest to the 4th power due to that being the factor of weight on road wear).
amrocha 4y ago
The reason the Tokyo transit system is so good is that the government built all the infrastructure up until the 80s, then private companies came in and reaped the profits. It's a product of planning, and of government infrastructure and spending, not of private competition. In fact, JR these days makes money by buying up real estate, building a station, and seeing land value skyrocket.
- clairity 4y ago
  yah, i've heard something like that before. competition wasn't the only factor, but it was a meaningful contributor. the tokyo operators compete on service and amenities (differentiation strategy), which is what allowed them to find profitable niches beyond just ticket sales (complementary/flanking offerings), and buoys the marketplace itself. in capital intensive infrastructure businesses like rail travel and telecom, it actually makes sense for the government to provide the high upfront capital to build the common infrastructure and lease it to the competitors (but not sell or give it away) to create viable markets like this.
  - amrocha 4y ago
    nah, nobody gives a shit about service and amenities. You choose the train that goes where you need to go fastest, that's the only thing that matters. Agencies coordinate with each other to build complementary lines. Nobody chooses to use a train because it's run by Toei vs JR, and train lines generally do not overlap. Leasing infrastructure sounds alright tho

throwaway743 4y ago

Have you used Tokyo's multi corp transit? It can be a real headache. Also, the MTA is private (mostly) and the subway costs a fare, yet there's homeless folks everywhere on the trains. Implementing a fare !== homeless people not setting up shop in subway cars or on the platforms. * the homeless and housing situation is a deeper issue with many variables. Just pointing at the claim that was made

clairity 4y ago
my experience of tokyo was as a tourist some 10 years ago, so i can't speak to the breadth of the transit experience there. i just remember being very impressed with the quantity and punctuality of trains and don't remember any homelessness. that's not to say i saw no homelessness in tokyo, but it seemed tiny compared to LA. i also rode the shinkansen between tokyo and osaka, which felt almost like flying, in contrast to amtrak's acela train on the east coast, which feels only slightly faster for a few short periods.
- throwaway743 4y ago
  Agreed on the impressive quality and timeliness of the subway trains. Seen homeless in Tokyo (not on the subway or at least it wasn't apparent) and it was a culture shock to see that those roughing it still took their shoes off and left them outside of their sleeping areas, and kept their areas neat/didn't obstruct space outside of what they needed. My point was private companies/fares won't prevent homeless people from staying off the subways or other unexpected results that are assumed to come with "free". MTA is a perfect example of that.
  - clairity 4y ago
    LA's metro, like MTA, also currently has fares and doesn't keep out the homeless, as fare enforcement here is a complete joke, so i hear what you're saying. i think the point was that being unvalued would mean that people would be even less likely to do or say anything about it, and it spirals into an even worse tragedy of the commons situation (the unintended consequences). i'd personally like to see metro raise base fares, and provide larger discounts to lower income riders via their LIFE program to offset that potentially regressive burden. in the best of times (before covid) fares only covered about 20-30% of operating costs, i believe. use that money to implement better service (more and more punctual trains), more social/community officers to help the homeless, peace officers on the trains themselves (currently they mostly just walk around stations every once in a while), and more rigorous cleaning and general maintenance. this all needs to be coordinated with getting housing and services to homeless folks, removing roadblocks to density along transit corridors, and emphasizing multi-mobility (like converting street parking to bus & bike lanes).
coryrc 4y ago
Huh? The Pasmo card can be used for basically all transit in Tokyo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasmo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasmo Every train and tram is on schedule. In what way is it a "real headache"?
- throwaway743 4y ago
  If you don't have to budget or care to, then sure it's not. Otherwise, paying for a fare only to have to pay another to transfer between the different train company lines is a headache.

7952 4y ago

Surely the free road system is the most serious distortion in the market. And free access to public transport could help rebalance that. We may end up with unintended consequences, but that is likely to be better than the negative consequences we live with right now.

clairity 4y ago
yes, we should better price in the cost of free roads rather than try to rebalance by making public transit free. i'd suggest making registration fees even more contingent on length and weight of vehicles, on a superlinearly escalating scale (e.g., some folks suggest to the 4th power due to that being the factor of weight on road wear).

amrocha 4y ago

The reason the Tokyo transit system is so good is that the government built all the infrastructure up until the 80s, then private companies came in and reaped the profits. It's a product of planning, and of government infrastructure and spending, not of private competition. In fact, JR these days makes money by buying up real estate, building a station, and seeing land value skyrocket.

clairity 4y ago
yah, i've heard something like that before. competition wasn't the only factor, but it was a meaningful contributor. the tokyo operators compete on service and amenities (differentiation strategy), which is what allowed them to find profitable niches beyond just ticket sales (complementary/flanking offerings), and buoys the marketplace itself. in capital intensive infrastructure businesses like rail travel and telecom, it actually makes sense for the government to provide the high upfront capital to build the common infrastructure and lease it to the competitors (but not sell or give it away) to create viable markets like this.
- amrocha 4y ago
  nah, nobody gives a shit about service and amenities. You choose the train that goes where you need to go fastest, that's the only thing that matters. Agencies coordinate with each other to build complementary lines. Nobody chooses to use a train because it's run by Toei vs JR, and train lines generally do not overlap. Leasing infrastructure sounds alright tho