21–30 of 57 posts
Clearly the fines are too low. Tripling the fines would defeat the economics of the freeloaders little group: Last year, the group took in more than twice as much money — more than $7,500 per month — as it paid out in fines, organizers said. Triple their fine costs, and the group is suddenly no longer economical. No investment in infrastructure needed.
Clearly the fines are too low. Tripling the fines would defeat the economics of the freeloaders little group: Last year, the group took in more than twice as much money — more than $7,500 per month — as it paid out in fines, organizers said. Triple their fine costs, and the group is suddenly no longer economical. No investment in infrastructure needed.
Triple the fines, and the poorer people who may have paid up before won't be able to anymore. It's a delicate balance; otherwise it would be too easy ("just make the fines $10 000")
Tripling the fine may decrease the number of people that pay it, but it would also essentially shutdown the group that encourages people to skip fares.
Increase fines and capture rates until the expected benefits of fare-dodging are negative. Nobody needs to run to catch the evaders. Periodically, ticket inspectors need to check everyone on a carriage / vehicle, covering all exits. $180 isn't much of a fine, especially since it can be covered by 50% of a $15/month membership charge. That implies a catch chance of about 4.2% per person per month. If an unlimited tick…
$180 is a significant fine, if you're poor. I've always liked the idea that a fine should be generally tied to your level of wealth, perhaps with a floor so it's not pointlessly low. If the idea of a fine is to deter repeat activity, wealthy people should be equally deterred.
What an ingenious and devious application of risk pooling.
Imagine risk pools being created for other fines, like tax evasion penalties or speeding tickets. I wonder if such agreements are legal?
"reasoning that scofflaws might graduate to more serious crimes if left alone." Really, is there any evidence of that? Or do they think that people will get bored with it, and start on harder crimes? I was disappointed that the article didn't really discuss WHY they are doing it, other than as some sort of “collective fare strike,” and the system should be free. But if it is free, then who will pay for it? It isn't l…
So I would guess it is mainly a matter of principle (not one that I share). Wikipedia also states "ticket fares in Stockholm have increased dramatically over time. By one measure—single ticket price for a 10-kilometre (6.2 mi) journey—Stockholm has the most expensive-to-use public transport in the world, as of March 2009"
Why public transport is paid is beyond me. Why would city spend significant resources to discourage usage of public transport by putting price on it? Do they really prefer for the people to buy cars and stand in traffic for hours on overcrowded streets and subsequently be disgruntled and pressure local governments for more roads? Why only public traffic commuters pay if all benefit from the fact that they are not on…
So I could either spend roughly $5 on the metro, or $20 in gas (plus a long ass commute and gridlock wait time). For what you get, most metro costs ARE planned to be at a significant advantage to most people.
Why public transport is paid is beyond me. Why would city spend significant resources to discourage usage of public transport by putting price on it? Do they really prefer for the people to buy cars and stand in traffic for hours on overcrowded streets and subsequently be disgruntled and pressure local governments for more roads? Why only public traffic commuters pay if all benefit from the fact that they are not on…
Fares also act as a congestion control mechanism. Higher rush-hour and central prices push information into the rest of the market.
Also, cars are not the only alternative to public transport. In central London where I work, cars face congestion charges that normally exceed the cost of a day ticket on public transport (if a single occupant). But bicycles and motorcycles are not charged, since they don't create congestion in the same way. Bicycles are cheaper than public transport, and governments have an incentive to encourage their use, since they hopefully have health benefits too - reducing healthcare costs.
Motorcycles can be cheaper than public transport too, but the calculation is much more complicated, owing to depreciation, maintenance, increased risk, increased fun factor, etc. A scooter is my personal choice.
Why public transport is paid is beyond me. Why would city spend significant resources to discourage usage of public transport by putting price on it? Do they really prefer for the people to buy cars and stand in traffic for hours on overcrowded streets and subsequently be disgruntled and pressure local governments for more roads? Why only public traffic commuters pay if all benefit from the fact that they are not on…
Without accounting, we can't tell where to divert resources to maintain or improve the equipment. It's also not possible to limit the use of the equipment beyond its stress limits without using money. Trains in particular require additional staff to handle high passenger loads. Some passenger trains are not set up to handle high traffic loads. Charging money limits the ridership to the people who want/need to use the train more than others. It also limits ridership of likely bad actors who will do things like key the windows or spray graffiti in the tunnels or on the trains themselves.
>Why would city spend significant resources to discourage usage of public transport?
Because then they would otherwise need to rely entirely upon the political process to maintain needed funding to the system, and there would be other spill-over impacts to the quality of the rail network.
>Do they really prefer for the people to buy cars and stand in traffic for hours on overcrowded streets and subsequently be disgruntled and pressure local governments for more roads?
I'm unfamiliar with road policy in Sweden. I imagine that the fares are paid through taxes on gasoline, tickets for driving violations, licensing fees for commercial vehicles, and other fees. The two transportation methods are not completely interchangeable. You can't run heavy freight on a passenger rail line. It's a bit easier to have shared freight and passenger traffic a highway. Expanding rail coverage to other regions is much more capital intensive than expanding road coverage, and much more challenging to estimate (see: the underutilized light rail projects all over the United States).
In a magical world of infinite resources and immortal human beings and infinite time, then there would be no reason to charge fees on anything. Because we live in a finite world of finite time and resources, we use money as a measurement tool to make better decisions with how we allocate our resources.
>Why only public traffic commuters pay if all benefit from the fact that they are not on the street crawling in 1.5 tonne of steel each?
Not all benefit at all times to the same degree. Also, it is probably also partially funded by taxes. That people are rebelling probably indicates other problems with the system outside the scope of the article.