Should Public Transportation Be Free? (community, cost, New York, downtown)

[annie_himself]

Originally Posted by Minervah

You mean all those taxes I have been paying for road upkeep all these years have been a big mistake?

Where do I go for my refund?

What we pay in taxes is a drop in the bucket on various roads budgets.
That is a weak argument.

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated

People who do not take public transportation are greatly benefited by it though. Less traffic congestion, less pollution, and less health care costs (cities with extensive public transit have significantly lower obesity rates).



Irrelevant. Public transit isn't a market; it is infrastructure. The residuals of public transit far outweigh the operating costs. The OP's proposal is to just completely fund public transit out of the general fund.



All the taxes you pay for road keep never paid the entire costs. Driving is highly subsidized (to the tune of roughly 50%). It is also a net drain on society with low residuals compared to public transit.

They would if you actually knew what you were talking about.

As I and others have tried to educate you on how road taxes work in other threads I really don't feel like repeating the entire lesson.

Short course:
Various taxes on liquid fuels were never meant to fund roads on a cash and carry basis. They are calculated and used as the revenue source for payments on bonds used to build those roads.

Fuels taxes, paid for by drivers generally (keep in mind that governmental entities are exempt from taxes on everything), have been increasingly diverted to other uses other the last several decades, primarily to mass transit and the various state General Funds to be used for other uses.

This has caused a shortfall in Highway User Revenue funds which some states are now attempting to replenish using General Fund revenues. Hence the incorrect "all taxpayers are funding roads". No, they are paying back money which should never have been diverted in the first place. This diversion happened in good years and bad, similar to the Federal government diverting FICA taxes to the General Fund.

[SpaniardinTexas]

Nobody pays the real price of the ticket. Local, state or any other form of goverment pay the difference.

People do not respect anything free. If people have to pay for something, even if it a symbolic quantity, they tend to care for it.

[chirack]

Originally Posted by goofy328

Another thing I do not like (which is probably an entirely different conversation) is how the same system will have reliable train service, but spotty bus service. Train is always on time, always picks up everyone and never has any issues. But the bus, if you can catch the bus and the driver does not pass you by, you never really know when it is going to arrive. It may be different in Cleveland, I've only visited, I never lived there. But I know that in Akron if it does not show up within 15 minutes of the scheduled time you may as well walk or catch a cab.

Trains have much more control of their condition than buses. Buses must deal with traffic and that can slow them down. Boarding an bus is also an slow affair compared to train boarding(one door everyone enters) and people having to pay as they enter. CTA buses will arrive(Chicago) but if you use public transit you need to leave some time for delays. PACE(Chicago's Burbs) on the other hand while it is on time much more than CTA can have such gaps between buses you might as well drive.

[Opin_Yunated]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

They would if you actually knew what you were talking about.

As I and others have tried to educate you on how road taxes work in other threads I really don't feel like repeating the entire lesson.

Short course:
Various taxes on liquid fuels were never meant to fund roads on a cash and carry basis. They are calculated and used as the revenue source for payments on bonds used to build those roads.

Fuels taxes, paid for by drivers generally (keep in mind that governmental entities are exempt from taxes on everything), have been increasingly diverted to other uses other the last several decades, primarily to mass transit and the various state General Funds to be used for other uses.

This has caused a shortfall in Highway User Revenue funds which some states are now attempting to replenish using General Fund revenues. Hence the incorrect "all taxpayers are funding roads". No, they are paying back money which should never have been diverted in the first place. This diversion happened in good years and bad, similar to the Federal government diverting FICA taxes to the General Fund.

Your little story is cute but it isn't quite accurate.

Regardless of the Federal Highway Trust fund, road funding has been inadequately funded by the gas tax for years. We haven't raised the gas tax since 1993.

[checkmatechamp13]

Originally Posted by New2PPenn

Staten Island Ferry in NYC between Manhattan - Staten Island is free...

That was made free because of the "One City-One Fare" policy enacted by Rudy Giuliani. A lot of Staten Islanders have to take a bus or subway/train at either one or both ends, so the vast majority of them are paying at some point or another.

Plus, it definitely helps when your bus arrives at the terminal at 10:59 and the ferry departs at 11:00, that you don't have to worry about swiping a card or buying a ticket to pay for the ferry.

Originally Posted by Murk

I never take public transportation. Why should I pay the fare of someone who does?

That's not meant to sound greedy or grumpy. It just makes plain common sense that the people using a service be the ones who pay for it.

Why should somebody who doesn't have kids (or has them, but sends them to a private/parochial school) pay taxes for public schools?

The net benefit of subsidizing public transportation is that you have improved air quality, decreased congestion, the economic benefits of mobility, etc, the same way the benefit of free public schools is a more educated population, and fewer kids getting into trouble.

Originally Posted by Disney_Geek18

Depends, in Orlando, the LYNX bus sytsem has a free circulator around the downtown business district. That should be free. SunRail, our commuter rail system had 2 free weeks of free service during its first 2 weeks of service this past spring. Because it is the first "train" in orlando, families and joyriders would take it from end to end while people taking it for work (the way its intended) had no room and there were major delays of the system because of these joyriders. The fares help cut back on the amount of joyriders.

That's a different situation. I believe ridership on the first day was around 9,000 - 10,000, while normal ridership was around 4,100. SunRail was running the amount of service required to accommodate 4,100 (and with good reason, too. You can't purchase double the amount of equipment and hire twice as many train operators & conductors just for two weeks).

Plus, I don't think it was seeing 9,000 - 10,000 riders per day for the entire two weeks, only the first couple of days.

Originally Posted by Murk

People who do not drive are greatly benefited by roads though. Emergency vehicles travel on them, shipments come by truck to the stores where they shop, etc. Road use in one form or another is pretty necessary for the functioning of the modern world. Public transportation is not.

In a dense, crowded area it is. (Though to be fair, buses do use roads, though trains don'r)

Originally Posted by ALackOfCreativity

Homeless people do this in the NYC subways too despite the $2.38 fee. Nominal fees aren't enough of a disincentive.

Not to the extent that they would if it was free.

Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated

It is also a net drain on society with low residuals compared to public transit.

....overall, yes, but with the exception in low-density, autocentric areas where the buses have extremely low ridership.

[In_Correct]

Originally Posted by ClevelandskyMan

Do you think public transportation should be free?

When answering, please back it up with some logic.

Yes, all forms of public transportation should be "free".

And all of the roadways need to be tolled for the public.

There must be more public transportation and it is time for all those drunk cell phone driving people need to be cracked down on.

[tisnjh]

There's two sides to every argument. Free public transportation will lead to a cleaner environment, but it would also lead to people abusing the system.

I voted depends on the type of public transportation.

[In_Correct]

Originally Posted by tisnjh

There's two sides to every argument. Free public transportation will lead to a cleaner environment, but it would also lead to people abusing the system.

I voted depends on the type of public transportation.

I think people abusing the public transportation system would be not be an issue. It seems that the laws are very strict when it applies to railroads. Most public transportation is NOT rail, but let me share this:

Other laws about rail are very strict, or they seem to be. There was a quick news story about a woman who caused a small passenger train wreck with her car. She was trying to go too fast and got stuck or something. It really does not matter. They do not seem to care why. If you cause a train wreck, you will be arrested!

Trains can be deadly machines, but (and I could be wrong) but there seems to be much fewer rail accidents than road accidents. There are many more drunk drivers talking on their cell phones, but perhaps I can't compare public transportation accidents with regular car accidents because there probably is so few public transportation exists in U.S.A.

But I do not see how much difficulty there is enforcing rules if people abuse the system. There is always a risk of any people abusing any system! That should not be an excuse to not expand public transportation (or to make it free) and it worrying about people abusing the system would not make the abusing people go away.

[Slowpoke_TX]

Originally Posted by Malloric

Nationally, it's pretty close to free anyway. The taxpayer pays for 62% of the operating costs and over 95% of the capital costs of transit as is.

Thus, it is not free - it is paid for primarily by taxpayers.