Public transport should be free for everyone, and that is something I'm willing to pay higher taxes for. If it's free more people will use it, which will justify more investment.
> Public transport should be free for everyone, and that is something I'm willing to pay higher taxes for
This is location dependent, public transport is not a build-it-and-they-will-use-it expenditure. Where I live, it is not something I'm willing to pay higher taxes for and every time it's done, it goes empty and costs lots. It is the equivalent of just setting a bunch of money on fire.
Public transport should be free for everyone, and that is something I'm willing to pay higher taxes for. If it's free more people will use it, which will justify more investment.
I don't think that is fair to taxpayers that don't use public transport because they walk, bike or use a car.
Sorry, but that's pretty pedestrian way of thinking. All of these categories (esp. cyclists) will benefit from reduced traffic and less air and noise pollution. As long as you're ok with government taxing you, making public transport free seems to me one of the best uses for these funds.
Also, there must be plenty of less obvious effects. E.g. Uber Eats or other kinds of delivery services can get cheaper, if couriers can travel across the city all day for free.
> rationing scarce goods Transportation should never be a scarce good. If induced demand highlights cracks in our transportation infrastructure, our job is not limit that use but to fix it through increased capacity.
Increasing capacity might distort the market for other stuff besides transportation. For example it might cause a company that was going to open an office in a neighboring city to open the office in Paris instead.
Public transport should be free for everyone, and that is something I'm willing to pay higher taxes for. If it's free more people will use it, which will justify more investment.
I used to think that, I love the utopian idea of just walking on any public transportation for free, and I would happily underwrite a little extra via taxes to make that a reality. But the counter argument really is that the minute you divorce a service entirely from payments, it is at increased risk of rapidly diverging from the needs and desires of the customer (user, consumer). If I choose to bike or walk or take…
Even if it's free to use they should keep monitoring 'profitability' of every lines, e.g. by assigning a value to each passenger to pay for the upkeep of the line.
Increasing capacity might distort the market for other stuff besides transportation. For example it might cause a company that was going to open an office in a neighboring city to open the office in Paris instead.
So the neighboring city should make it free too?
If they all can afford it, sure.
If they can't afford it they end up with overcrowded buses and then people who don't want to wait a long time for a bus that isn't full have to buy cars instead, and traffic gets worse for everyone.
I don't think that is fair to taxpayers that don't use public transport because they walk, bike or use a car.
Sorry, but that's pretty pedestrian way of thinking. All of these categories (esp. cyclists) will benefit from reduced traffic and less air and noise pollution. As long as you're ok with government taxing you, making public transport free seems to me one of the best uses for these funds. Also, there must be plenty of less obvious effects. E.g. Uber Eats or other kinds of delivery services can get cheaper, if couriers…
There will be more traffic and more air pollution. People will take the bus more often instead of walking or cycling. The bus companies in most Western European countries use diesel engines.
And Uber Eats wont use public transport, it is very slow compared to an e-bike or scooter.
I don't think that is fair to taxpayers that don't use public transport because they walk, bike or use a car.
I live and work in a suburb of NYC...and effectively MUST drive everywhere...and that sucks. I would happily pay more taxes IF they were devoted to supporting and upgrading and growing any/all public transit; and of course bringing any cost down to users/citizens. (I would much rather be able to take public transit myself to work instead of driving.)
Why do you prefer paying for public transport through taxes instead of paying a fair price for your ticket? Why does your retired neighbor need to pay for your commute too?
I used to think that, I love the utopian idea of just walking on any public transportation for free, and I would happily underwrite a little extra via taxes to make that a reality. But the counter argument really is that the minute you divorce a service entirely from payments, it is at increased risk of rapidly diverging from the needs and desires of the customer (user, consumer). If I choose to bike or walk or take…
Even if it's free to use they should keep monitoring 'profitability' of every lines, e.g. by assigning a value to each passenger to pay for the upkeep of the line.
And then what? In NYC at least the subway and ferry service is very inefficient by pretty much any measure, and that's why they're constantly running in the red. The problem is there is no real feedback, instead they just lobby for more subsidies and higher prices. If there were some kind of feedback, they would prob improve efficiency like reducing service to outer boroughs or charging more for those, stopping ferry service as that's a huge money sink, reduce head count and maybe restructure pension obligations. Instead they're putting usb ports in trains
Healthcare and unemployment act more like insurance than a service though I don't entirely disagree I just think they're not great comparisons.
Ability to move around to (possible/prospective) jobs locations is a big factor in unemployment. Free public transport means losing my ability to pay for my car doesn't mean I lose the ability to go more than a couple of miles away from my house. Not that the article here is for kids (and in particular for Paris) so my comparisons is not that great I admit but still, living in a rural area I've spent my entire teenag…
In a pure economy, a job that is located in a place that is expensive to reach will cease to exist or pay enough to make the commute worth it.