4 ms·

If they are a public good worthy of subsidizing, then yes! For NYC, it has been estimated that every car driving in lower Manhattan incurs ... goddammit I can'

by pmb 13y ago

If they are a public good worthy of subsidizing, then yes! For NYC, it has been estimated that every car driving in lower Manhattan incurs ... goddammit I can't find a reference so I'm going with memory here ... at least ~$3 in social costs due to increased pollution, congestion, road wear, etc.. That's in addition to the costs paid by the driver (car depreciation, gas, insurance, opportunity costs, etc.). If that memory is really true, then subsidizing transit to eliminate these social costs ends up being a huge net win! If we want people to do something, we should subsidize it and (in the case of transit) make it free[1]. If we don't want people to do something, we should tax it (Pigouvian taxes FTW!). [1] - Transit will never be as fast as driving due to the extra stops and walk required at either end, so we need to keep it free to minimise the total cost of fare + extra_time_wasted*salary, which corresponds to opportunity cost to riders. Riders whose total cost is too high will not ride, and riding transit is a social good (or is at least much less of a social bad then driving).

bmmayer1 13y ago
If something is "Free" people will hoard it which will reduce its value and increase its cost to everyone. There will be massive shortages of available bus space. With a paid system, people are forced to economize--do I really need to pay to take the bus in winter 5 blocks to buy groceries, or can I walk? But if it's "Free," then people will not economize. The people who need the bus the most, to go to work or hospital or whatever, will have to compete for limited space with people who don't need to be taking the bus. In addition, alternative transit options that could relieve excess demand would be driven out of business (because who can compete with free?). So, the city will be forced to massively increase the cost of the program to meet demand, which would lead to higher taxes anyway, likely offsetting the nominal bus fees that were eliminated.
- wutbrodo 13y ago
  > alternative transit options that could relieve excess demand would be driven out of business (because who can compete with free?). Alternatives don't just compete on price, but also things like convenience. In fact, even in the current system, it's damn hard (impossible?) to find a transportation alternative that's priced lower than a bus. Muni in SF costs $2 a ride (plus free transfers for a few hours), and the only cheaper transport is walking, which can't "go out of business". If I take a taxi, it's not because they're offering $1 fares, it's because it's faster, more direct, and more comfortable, and that advantage will only increase in a free-bus scenario (because presumably buses will be more crowded).
  - bmmayer1 13y ago
    You're making my point. Muni in SF is heavily subsidized, which means there are no transit alternatives available that can compete on price. This makes the only two options for transit very cheap or very expensive, further widening inequality. It's exactly what would be expected by subsidizing transit even more, in fact.
- lmm 13y ago
  >If something is "Free" people will hoard it which will reduce its value and increase its cost to everyone. There will be massive shortages of available bus space. With a paid system, people are forced to economize--do I really need to pay to take the bus in winter 5 blocks to buy groceries, or can I walk? But if it's "Free," then people will not economize. The people who need the bus the most, to go to work or hospital or whatever, will have to compete for limited space with people who don't need to be taking the bus. This is a popular theory with certain economists but has not been borne out by experiment. E.g. my country introduced pricing for prescription drugs (previously free) based on exactly that reasoning. Turns out overall usage barely changed (the very poorest stopped taking their prescriptions because they couldn't afford them, but they're a relatively small proportion of society) and administering the payment system cost far more than the money saved in reduced usage or collected in fees.
  - bmmayer1 13y ago
    What's your country? It would be good to know more context here.
- pmb 13y ago
  You can't hoard transit. It's a service, not a good. You can, however, use it. Which is a good thing (a social good!). Even more, transit capital is allocated by use, not by profit. More people using it should (in a non-stupid world) lead to more investment in the infrastructure, which has long term positive benefits for everyone (or, at least, has had them every time in the past in NYC).
  - bmmayer1 13y ago
    Of course you can hoard transit. You can hoard anything with a limited availability. Since Muni buses are not the TARDIS, there's a limited amount of seats to go around. With buses, hoarding means taking the bus way more often than you need to (like in my example, 5 blocks to the grocery store). If something is free, it doesn't change the underlying scarcity, it just increases demand. To your second point, you are careful to qualify that the world needs to be a utopia in order for your system to work. Good luck with that :)

by pmb 13y ago

bmmayer1 13y ago

If something is "Free" people will hoard it which will reduce its value and increase its cost to everyone. There will be massive shortages of available bus space. With a paid system, people are forced to economize--do I really need to pay to take the bus in winter 5 blocks to buy groceries, or can I walk? But if it's "Free," then people will not economize. The people who need the bus the most, to go to work or hospital or whatever, will have to compete for limited space with people who don't need to be taking the bus. In addition, alternative transit options that could relieve excess demand would be driven out of business (because who can compete with free?). So, the city will be forced to massively increase the cost of the program to meet demand, which would lead to higher taxes anyway, likely offsetting the nominal bus fees that were eliminated.

wutbrodo 13y ago
> alternative transit options that could relieve excess demand would be driven out of business (because who can compete with free?). Alternatives don't just compete on price, but also things like convenience. In fact, even in the current system, it's damn hard (impossible?) to find a transportation alternative that's priced lower than a bus. Muni in SF costs $2 a ride (plus free transfers for a few hours), and the only cheaper transport is walking, which can't "go out of business". If I take a taxi, it's not because they're offering $1 fares, it's because it's faster, more direct, and more comfortable, and that advantage will only increase in a free-bus scenario (because presumably buses will be more crowded).
- bmmayer1 13y ago
  You're making my point. Muni in SF is heavily subsidized, which means there are no transit alternatives available that can compete on price. This makes the only two options for transit very cheap or very expensive, further widening inequality. It's exactly what would be expected by subsidizing transit even more, in fact.
lmm 13y ago
>If something is "Free" people will hoard it which will reduce its value and increase its cost to everyone. There will be massive shortages of available bus space. With a paid system, people are forced to economize--do I really need to pay to take the bus in winter 5 blocks to buy groceries, or can I walk? But if it's "Free," then people will not economize. The people who need the bus the most, to go to work or hospital or whatever, will have to compete for limited space with people who don't need to be taking the bus. This is a popular theory with certain economists but has not been borne out by experiment. E.g. my country introduced pricing for prescription drugs (previously free) based on exactly that reasoning. Turns out overall usage barely changed (the very poorest stopped taking their prescriptions because they couldn't afford them, but they're a relatively small proportion of society) and administering the payment system cost far more than the money saved in reduced usage or collected in fees.
- bmmayer1 13y ago
  What's your country? It would be good to know more context here.
pmb 13y ago
You can't hoard transit. It's a service, not a good. You can, however, use it. Which is a good thing (a social good!). Even more, transit capital is allocated by use, not by profit. More people using it should (in a non-stupid world) lead to more investment in the infrastructure, which has long term positive benefits for everyone (or, at least, has had them every time in the past in NYC).
- bmmayer1 13y ago
  Of course you can hoard transit. You can hoard anything with a limited availability. Since Muni buses are not the TARDIS, there's a limited amount of seats to go around. With buses, hoarding means taking the bus way more often than you need to (like in my example, 5 blocks to the grocery store). If something is free, it doesn't change the underlying scarcity, it just increases demand. To your second point, you are careful to qualify that the world needs to be a utopia in order for your system to work. Good luck with that :)