4 ms·
I disagree with this on the basis of "tragedy of the commons"[0] For every person acting in their self-interest, it's usually cheaper and more efficient for th
by ronaldx 13y ago
I disagree with this on the basis of "tragedy of the commons"[0]
For every person acting in their self-interest, it's usually cheaper and more efficient for them to use their car.
However, using their car has a cost of congestion (and a cost to the local and global environment) that is borne by everyone: if everyone makes the same decision, then everyone suffers quite badly and is still more constrained because now the public transport option is unmaintained and even worse than before.
A "Prisoner's Dilemma"-type Nash equilibrium has occurred.
As such, it's important for government to incentivise public transport (which they generally do, as it stands).
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
- drcode 13y agoYes, TOC makes this question more complicated. However, my argument wasn't against subsidizing public transport, just that we shouldn't have a 100% subsidy.