Should All Public Transit Be Free?

Originally posted by Eladar
No, the free market doesn't fix freeways. I didn't say that it did. I just said that one way to fix grid lock is to build other freeways or perhaps toll roads. Build more roads or expand the number of lanes for the highways already in existance, that's how you deal with grid lock.

There's more than one way to deal with gridlocked highways. None of them happen automatically.

Originally posted by badmoon
How can it be free if it is tax supported?

Wow. Another person who simply doesn't read the foregoing comments and/or the article! Thanks for your "input".

Originally posted by Eladar
No, the free market doesn't fix freeways. I didn't say that it did. I just said that one way to fix grid lock is to build other freeways or perhaps toll roads. Build more roads or expand the number of lanes for the highways already in existance, that's how you deal with grid lock.

It can be argued that building more roads / lanes just encourages more use of cars, and that the phenomenon that actually persuades people to leave their cars at home is... congestion.

Originally posted by DrKF
Some people think so:

http://bigthink.com/ideas/22893

But you know what? I bet not everyone here does...

At least in NYC and in my area, public transit is so cheap so that the cost is rarely a major factor in determining whether to use is. At $2.25, it's hard for me to imagine someone saying "Well, I'd like to take the train, but I don't want to shell out two bucks."

The only time I can imagine cost even coming into play is when you're only traveling a stop or two, in which case it may be helpful for us to encourage people to walk and stay healthy.

The disadvantage of public transit is the inconvenience of having to wait for the train or bus to come and then perhaps having to transfer or walk a significant distance. The cost is only a very marginal factor. It's already much cheaper than private transit in most cases. Where you have a car and it's an easy drive, you're not going to take the train or bus even if they pay you.

While the individual pays little for a train or bus ride, the municipality brings in a lot of money from the cumulative effects of all riders paying fares. Replacing that revenue would be very difficult and would require a significant tax increase or cutting back significant other benefits or both. The cities are cash strapped enough as it is. Increasing tolls is simply not going to cut it; and, if it would, I'd rather see them keep the fares, increase the tolls and reduce taxes.

In short, I do not like the idea at all.

Originally posted by sh76
At least in NYC and in my area, public transit is so cheap so that the cost is rarely a major factor in determining whether to use is. At $2.25, it's hard for me to imagine someone saying "Well, I'd like to take the train, but I don't want to shell out two bucks."

The only time I can imagine cost even coming into play is when you're only traveling a stop or ...[text shortened]... ares, increase the tolls and reduce taxes.

In short, I do not like the idea at all.

You're an elitist; $2.25 a ride would be over $100 a month to take a train to and from work every day for example. That might be a fairly heavy burden for someone with a low wage job and a family.

Or can't you "imagine" that?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're an elitist; $2.25 a ride would be over $100 a month to take a train to and from work every day for example. That might be a fairly heavy burden for someone with a low wage job and a family.

Or can't you "imagine" that?

I'm comparing it to private transportation, which, when you factor in the cost of purchasing, gassing and maintaining a car, is almost always going to be more expensive. I never said it didn't cost anything; but if you consume a service it's not unreasonable to ask you to actually pay for it. I support in your mind, the fact that I ask that people pay for the services that they consume makes me an elitist. 🙄

If you paid attention to my post (which you obviously did not), you might have noticed that I brought up the cost in relation to the decision as to whether or not to use it; not whether the total cost could be a burden to someone.

Milk is also cheap, but can also be a burden to a family. Should we start giving out free milk to everyone?

Originally posted by sh76
I'm comparing it to private transportation, which, when you factor in the cost of purchasing, gassing and maintaining a car, is almost always going to be more expensive. I never said it didn't cost anything; but if you consume a service it's not unreasonable to ask you to actually pay for it. I support in your mind, the fact that I ask that people pay for the services that they consume makes me an elitist. 🙄

What are you, channeling whodey? Your post said:

At $2.25, it's hard for me to imagine someone saying "Well, I'd like to take the train, but I don't want to shell out two bucks."

Well, it isn't very hard to imagine for anybody who is aware of the conditions that low income workers operate under. The claims made in this post are disingenuous; they have nothing to do with your failure of imagination as regards how many people live. That is what I was responding to and that is what makes you an elitist, not your particular policy preferences in this instance.

EDIT: If you had read the OP's link, you would have seen that the benefit to low income workers was specifically cited as one of the reasons that public transit being free would be desirable:

•"More efficient labor markets since it is easier for poor people to get to jobs. This is a benefit to employers for it makes it easier to hire people and it is a benefit to the people without cars who now find it easier to get jobs. But it is also a benefit to the society at large because it contributes to a long-term reduction in poverty."

Whether you chose to believe it or not, the cost of public transit is a factor considered by such workers in their employment searches.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What are you, channeling whodey? Your post said:

At $2.25, it's hard for me to imagine someone saying "Well, I'd like to take the train, but I don't want to shell out two bucks."

Well, it isn't very hard to imagine for anybody who is aware of the conditions that low income workers operate under. The claims made in ...[text shortened]... hat is what makes you an elitist, not your particular policy preferences in this instance.

Okay, let's try to do this logically.

I said:

it's hard for me to imagine someone saying "Well, I'd like to take the train, but I don't want to shell out two bucks."

Obviously, you can see that what I'm referring to is a case of discretionary travel. If you need to travel somewhere, then you have no choice.

The purpose of making public transport free would be to encourage people to use it instead of driving, thereby helping the environment and congestion. If travel is not discretionary, then encouraging it would be irrelevant.

If you want to argue for free public transport as a new welfare program, fine. That was not the main point of the article cited by the OP.

Said article starts:

More than half of the world’s population lives near an urban center. But as our cities grow increasing traffic has clogged roads and highways. In much of the U.S., a car—there are 246 million registered, as of 2009—is a near-necessity. Meanwhile, longer commutes have been linked with severe health problems, according to a recent report by Gallup.

Public transportation systems hold the promise of more efficient movement—and a healthier population—but in many U.S. cities there are few incentives to promote widespread use of buses, subways, trolleys and trains.

That was the sole point of my post, your attempt to hide your miscalculation by serving up whodey as the butt of another mindless throwaway notwithstanding.

You completely misconstrued my post because of your unwillingness or inability to read and/or understand my point and accused me of saying something "elitist" when there was plainly nothing in my post that implied any such thing. So, you follow it up by digging in your heels with some vague comment about my not recognizing how "people live."


Edit: Re your edit: That was one of many reasons cited. That was not the one I was referring to and that was plain from my post. The ad hominem "elitist" comment was plainly unnecessary, mean spirited and baseless.

Originally posted by DrKF
Some people think so:

http://bigthink.com/ideas/22893

But you know what? I bet not everyone here does...

don't think there are many who think so.
public transportation is a luxury, it isn't a necessity. therefore one can do without. it is the same as hot water or electricity.

It seems to me that a country that cares about its citizens would be more interested in providing free food and free housing before free transportation and healthcare.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What are you, channeling whodey? Your post said:

At $2.25, it's hard for me to imagine someone saying "Well, I'd like to take the train, but I don't want to shell out two bucks."

Well, it isn't very hard to imagine for anybody who is aware of the conditions that low income workers operate under. The claims made in ...[text shortened]... of public transit is a factor considered by such workers in their employment searches.

that is the employer's problem. if the workplace is out of town or simply a large distance away it is up to the employer to set up cheap or free transportation. again, it is a luxury not a requirement. as an employer i may choose to treat my employees like crap and suffer the consequences.

Originally posted by sh76
Okay, let's try to do this logically.

I said:

it's hard for me to imagine someone saying "Well, I'd like to take the train, but I don't want to shell out two bucks."

Obviously, you can see that what I'm referring to is a case of discretionary travel. If you need to travel somewhere, then you have no choice.

The purpose of making publ ...[text shortened]... e ad hominem "elitist" comment was plainly unnecessary, mean spirited and baseless.

Selectively quoting yourself is an interesting, if intellectually dishonest strategy. In the very next sentence, you stated:

The only time I can imagine cost even coming into play is when you're only traveling a stop or two

Again this failure of your imagination is a manifestation of your elitist mindset. Those aware of the conditions of low wage workers can easily "imagine" that something that would add $100 a month to their expenses would "come into play" on a regular basis.

The original article cited the economic benefit to low wage workers as one of the factors in the desirability of free transit. That you chose to ignore it is, again, typical of your mindset. Commenting on that mindset is hardly "mean spirited or baseless" particularly when it is of direct relevance to your position on the issue at hand. As to "unnecessary" everything posted on this forum is "unnecessary" in the Grand Scale of Things, but since your objection to free transit seem based, in part, on the misconception that cost is an irrelevant factor to those deciding whether to use it, clearing up that misconception seems desirable if not strictly "necessary".

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
that is the employer's problem. if the workplace is out of town or simply a large distance away it is up to the employer to set up cheap or free transportation. again, it is a luxury not a requirement. as an employer i may choose to treat my employees like crap and suffer the consequences.

Unemployment and under-utilization of productive capacity is a societal problem.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
don't think there are many who think so.
public transportation is a luxury, it isn't a necessity. therefore one can do without. it is the same as hot water or electricity.

Hot water and electricity are "luxuries"?

Originally posted by Eladar
It seems to me that a country that cares about its citizens would be more interested in providing free food and free housing before free transportation and healthcare.

Good point; food and housing come first, I think most of the first world has that covered through welfare systems. And most have health care.

Next should be transport and utilities.