Public Transport

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

you have presented no evidence that fare enforcement is evpensive - and pleny of evidence that fares are significant sources of income (and likely were higher in the past)

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

If this was a private venture, it would have gone bankrupt long ago. Revenue is a mere fraction of expenditures, a bit more than 1/3. Taxes are the most significant source of funding at 37%.

I think it absurd to have to prove that fare enforcement is more expensive than simply not doing it. That is an obvious fact and if we can't agree on that, there is no point in further conversation.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

This was a private venture and it was making plenty of money until the City prevented fare increases (1920/1930s), resulting in the subways going bankrupt in the 1950s and the city taking over.

Maybe I misunderstood the rest of your argument - I understood you to be claiming that the system should be free because fares are not that making much money anyway. If you are only talking about enforcement for those who don't pay their fare - I still disagree, but the data is not clear at all and I will admit that. (what we don't know is how many will stop paying when they know there is no enforcement) Fare enforcement is for sure something that needs to be weighed - there is a line where you are spending more on enforcement than it is worth, and so some people should get away with cheating. However you still need to have enough enforcement that most people feel it isn't worth risking (partially this is keep honest people honest)

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

Not quite. The private subway companies signed contracts in 1913 fixing the rates at 5 cents. Then WW1 started and caused inflation. The private rail lines put themselves out of business by agreeing to a deal they couldn't uphold. That's capitalism baby!

You are right that I support free fares because it doesn't make that much anyway. The cost or charging includes the digital pay system management contract of the OMNY system, the purchase and maintenance contract for the turnstiles themselves, the pay and benefits costs of MTA employees and police stationed at each stop to prevent fare jumpers, the cost of trial and potential jail for fare jumpers, and probably other ancillary costs associated with charging fares.I can't begin to calculate these costs. How would I even calculate the cost of something more esoteric like the environmental cost of the people who drive that would instead take the train if it were free?

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Most people drive because the service is not useful. Take your free fares for the rich and use the money instead to give them service so good they will use it. Sure some will drive no matter what but most drive because transit isn't useful for their trips. Since money isn't the limit in the first place free won'tiget them to ride.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't think it's crazy to think a previously pay service will see some degree of increase in isership if it becomes free. Maybe it would be a little, maybe it would be a lot. That's why estimating the cost savings is hard.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

you will get a lot greater increase in usage by spending the money on better service.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

That's a fair argument. It's hard to say which would create the greater social benefit. There is no reason both can't happen if we realign our national priorities.