3 ms·
Your first sentence is wrong. Not charging for service does not necessarily mean less money for investing into better service. It’s possible for government to
by syzarian 4y ago
Your first sentence is wrong. Not charging for service does not necessarily mean less money for investing into better service. It’s possible for government to fund the service well enough that revenue from fares becomes insignificant. In effect, the fares would be paid by all taxpayers instead of just those who use the service. This is similar in concept to how public schools are funded. We don’t charge people at the point of service for using the public school system.
- bluGill 4y agoNobody is seriously proposing to add enough money to transit systems that they can run a system with such great coverage and frequency that there isn't anyplace more service wold be needed. Until you are funding transit to that levels we should charge fares.
- syzarian 4y agoNobody is charging enough that revenue from fare collections can provide this. So what is your point then? Clearly funding from then government can be enough to make fare collection an insignificant amount when it comes to paying for upgrades and new service.
- bluGill 4y agoThe point is government funding isn't that high and nobody is seriously suggesting making it that high. You can raise funding from government, but if that happens you should spend that extra money on more services, not the same services with less fares. The working poor who use your system would prefer more service to cheaper fares in general. Sure there are some too disabled to work who need cheaper fares, but they are a tiny minority (and should be handled with a separate subsidy from your social works department). The rest of the riders want more service as their main consideration. (again at the current fare pricing - you can make a straw man what if fares where $1000/month)