> From an economic perspective the 9 Euro ticket was a disaster. How so exactly? subsiding public transit is not inherently a bad thing. If done well, the res

> From an economic perspective the 9 Euro ticket was a disaster. How so exactly? subsiding public transit is not inherently a bad thing. If done well, the resulting transit can result in more economic growth in the area than would have otherwise occured, with that growth leading an increased tax base that outweighs the expenditure. And even without reaching that point, it is possible that the net value to the people as a whole exceeds the expenditure making it a reasonably good idea, despite being a net drain on budget. (Most government expenditures fall into this category, and the fact that is a subsidy rather than say a social security program is not necessarily especially relevant.) But obviously it is equally possible to create poorly thought out subsidies that don't even come close to producing value equal to the spend. I'm assuming you are asserting this one falls into this later category?