4 ms·
Not OP, but somebody still has to pay for the transit. And a "free" service is politically much more vulnerable than one that is partly being paid for by the us
by ano-ther 2y ago
Not OP, but somebody still has to pay for the transit. And a "free" service is politically much more vulnerable than one that is partly being paid for by the users because it involves taxes and redistribution. It adds pressure for each (annual) budget discussion.
- simonw 2y agoThat "politically vulnerable" point is good. Almost all public transit ends up heavily subsidized, so the argument for free is that it's not a huge difference, and it reduces the costs involved in collecting fees / enforcement etc. But yeah, it's easier for political winds to blow against it.
- brailsafe 2y agoI'd add that it wouldn't be so outlandish to assume that any superficially and widely agreeable movement might just be astroturfing, considering how cheap and easy it is to persuade people in general, but also specifically by making them think everyone else feels the same, and how often the arguments just parrot whatever the various internet personalities happen to be saying about it without any additional insight.
- bobthepanda 2y agoIt is generally not a huge difference in small systems like you find in college towns. It is a pretty substantial portion of most major transit agency budgets; BART for example has a farebox recovery of about a third. If you were to totally make it free you would need to basically increase the other sources of funding by 50%.
- kjkjadksj 2y agoLA metro fairbox recovery is like 5% fwiw. Look up median income levels too on that system and you might be inclined to slash fares.
- bobthepanda 2y agothe argument has always been, is it better to spend that 5% on making it free, or is it better to spend that on making services more useful so that people actually switch to it? The cost is not really the reason LA Metro ridership is so low and farebox recovery is so low.