Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm inclined to say no. Free has a special meaning in the human brain and makes us make inefficient decisions, because we want to take advantage of free and we're terrible at quantifying the costs of our time and the like.
It encourages what's basically inefficient use of the system, using it for extremely short trips, people who don't value their time taking it on unnecessary trips all the way across the city, etc.
Even a small cost fixes that perception issue. And that's what I think local public transit largely should cost. $1-3 doesn't come close to 100% farebox recovery anywhere, but it keeps people using it intelligently. And ideally that cost is somewhat in-line with the incremental operating costs of rising ridership. That helps keep it from being as much of a fiscal target for politicians, IMO.
Commuter Rail I think should be a larger charge. Subsidizing people who chose to live far from work is not the same as providing the basic public service that local public transport provides, and other use of it is the same, a luxury as opposed to something done for basic daily needs.
Obviously, in the real world we wind up with lots of grey area. Someone living in Far Rockaway can ride out to the Bronx on a subway fare. A distance based system with a small minimum charge is probably ideal for encouraging appropriate use, but that winds up being a mess to calculate (as anyone who's visited DC can agree).
-------------------
If you're interested in how we think about "Free" and behaviors of ours in general, I'd suggest some of Dan Ariely's books for something readable yet informative. Predictably Irrational is the one that covers "Free" as one of it's topics.
No. And I say that as someone who takes the train to Wall St. on a regular basis.
Mass transportation has a huge barrier of entry and the profits just aren't there. In most cases, it's only something the public sector can take on due to the amount of funding required to build it out. However, that doesn't mean that public transportation should be subsidized by taxpayers. It should be run as a non-profit entity.
I don't see the point, either we pay for it with fares and taxes like we do now, or we make it free and pay for it entirely with taxes. Either way it's the same price, we're just paying for it in different ways
I don't see the point, either we pay for it with fares and taxes like we do now, or we make it free and pay for it entirely with taxes. Either way it's the same price, we're just paying for it in different ways
No. In Miami we have the Metromover which is free, and the issue is the homeless people want to hop on it and sleep or hang out. Security has to boot them off when they catch them.
we live in a generation that has been taught to expect everything for free.
its a pity that it is fleeting.
This is true. The baby boomers (and even younger folks born into the 1960s) lived in times where they were the government subsidized everything to the point where they were handed everything for free or cheap. And now they've just come to expect it. A pity indeed.
Of course it should be free, because there's absolutely no cost to run the buses or trains. All the employees work voluntarily because they don't have to pay rent, and any maintenance or upkeep just magically happens with no expenditure. All the parts and supplies needed are just freely given by companies. The fares currently charged are 100% pure profit, so it's not as if giving away free rides is basically demanding others pay so you can have a free handout and ride at your leisure.
And we all scratch our heads, ask why the government is trillions of dollars in debt and on the cusp of insolvency...
Of course it should be free, because there's absolutely no cost to run the buses or trains. All the employees work voluntarily because they don't have to pay rent, and any maintenance or upkeep just magically happens with no expenditure. All the parts and supplies needed are just freely given by companies. The fares currently charged are 100% pure profit, so it's not as if giving away free rides is basically demanding others pay so you can have a free handout and ride at your leisure.
And we all scratch our heads, ask why the government is trillions of dollars in debt and on the cusp of insolvency...
I did find your response amusing, but it's not that ridiculous really. 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. If you excluded NY the operating cost number would be significantly higher.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
