3 ms·

> means you have less money to put into better service Not really. It just means you're using taxes instead of fares. The cost doesn't go away. You only get le

> means you have less money to put into better service Not really. It just means you're using taxes instead of fares. The cost doesn't go away. You only get less money for transit if the politicians holding the purse strings are not the ones deciding to make the transit free, which would be indicative of a very broken system. Similarly, if the service is bad, you don't get riders, and you get less in fares. If you're relying on fares to improve service as you suggest, you end up with a negative feedback loop. It's simply not one or the other. And on top of all of that, there's no positive feedback loop created by charging a fare. Transit in the US is almost never free for most people, and yet the service is still often bad. It's a weird argument to say fares are necessary for good service, and yet we have fares and no good service. Could it be worse? Sure, but there's no broad, obvious correlation between how transit is funded and the quality of service.

bluGill 4y ago
That money needs to come from somewhere. Those politicians need to come up with it somehow, and there is a limited pot. The fares are an additional pool of money - if they are adding money to make up what is lost in fares they can add that money and retain fares as well. Fares + subsidy it not a zero sum game. > And on top of all of that, there's no positive feedback loop created by charging a fare Sure, but it isn't a negative loop either. So long as the fares are small of course. People mostly are fine with paying a small fare. So you should charge that small price and get that additional money. You can subside a few riders who are really poor, but for the most part your focus should be on riders who can afford the fare. More money is needed to build/run more transit. If you are spending money to replace fares that is money you are not spending to build/run more transit.

bluGill 4y ago

That money needs to come from somewhere. Those politicians need to come up with it somehow, and there is a limited pot. The fares are an additional pool of money - if they are adding money to make up what is lost in fares they can add that money and retain fares as well. Fares + subsidy it not a zero sum game. > And on top of all of that, there's no positive feedback loop created by charging a fare Sure, but it isn't a negative loop either. So long as the fares are small of course. People mostly are fine with paying a small fare. So you should charge that small price and get that additional money. You can subside a few riders who are really poor, but for the most part your focus should be on riders who can afford the fare. More money is needed to build/run more transit. If you are spending money to replace fares that is money you are not spending to build/run more transit.