3 ms·
The article is dishonest. A better title would be: "Making transit free in Iowa City did not significantly increase the ridership (just 18% over the 2019 level)
by cyberax 1y ago
The article is dishonest. A better title would be: "Making transit free in Iowa City did not significantly increase the ridership (just 18% over the 2019 level), while imposing more taxes on everyone".
They claim to have removed 5200 cars, out of area of 500000 people ("Iowa City-Cedar Rapids statistical region"). The increase is pitiful, from 6.7% of people using transit to 7.2% with the rest being car commutes.
Neither has it "cleared the traffic". Iowa City is also a well-run city, with just a 17-minute average commute time, indicating that it has no congestion to speak of.
- estabn 1y agoI agree. You can't compare the transit system of Iowa City (population less than 75,000) to that of New York City (population 8,500,000).
- Marsymars 1y ago"More taxes on everyone" also is dishonest. Every individual is paying more in "taxes", but the net amount of money collected from the population of the city for the cost of providing transit is decreased. (Since the cost of fare collection disappears. Or if the net amount of money doesn't decrease, they're presumably spending what was formerly spent on fare collection on additional service.)
- cyberax 1y agoNo, it's not. Fares are not taxes, so while some people might end up paying less (no fare), the overall amount of tax did go up.
- Marsymars 1y agoI didn't imply that fares are taxes, because I don't feel that it's a relevant point either way, it's just a distraction to the actual matter - the cost of transit to society. Whether the cost is collected in taxes or fares is just an implementation detail.