Originally posted by Palynka
Surely you see the contradictions in this post? The cost of public transport is small for the individual but distributing the tax burden over a larger group of individuals is high?
I meant (I thought I made this fairly clear, but I guess I did not) that the cost of public transport is small
as compared to other modes of transportation, not that it is insignificant in a vacuum. The primary reasons in the article in the OP focused on making public transport free to encourage its use.
To encourage its use means to encourage its use over other means of transportation. In virtually all cases, the question that people ask that is going to be influenced by cost of travel is not whether to go somewhere, but how to get there (unless you're talking about long trips, such as air or inter-city train travel).
My point was that the cost of public transportation is already so much lower than private transportation that making it free will only have a marginal impact in getting people to choose public over private transit. Hence, the burden of subsidizing public transit even further is unjustified.
Edit: Cost of administration must be insignificant compared to the revenue it generates. Cutting out fares would also cause hundreds of public sector jobs to be lost. By cutting out fares, you're eliminating a sector of the city economy to subsidize a service for no compelling reason.
Re the last point: I don't know what it's like in Europe, but congestion at the subway gates in NYC is not a major factor.