Fare Dodging Is an Organized Rebellion in Stockholm, and It’s Winning

Post by DanBC » Sun, May 25, 2014, 4:58 AM UTC

dingaling wrote: post #50

scotty79 wrote: post #14

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…

> Why public transport is paid is beyond me. In the UK people over 65 now receive a Senior Citizen card that permits them free use of public transport. The respective local governments pay a subsidy to the transport operators when each card is used. Anecdotally, the result is that people take public transport for 'something to do'. Going 120 miles on the cross-border train to Dublin because it is warm and they are bo…

Post by omonra » Sun, May 25, 2014, 5:07 AM UTC

vacri wrote: post #24

barrkel wrote: post #19

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 isn't much of a fine, especially since it can be covered by 50% of a $15/month membership charge. $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.

Post by vacri » Sun, May 25, 2014, 12:32 PM UTC

YokoZar wrote: post #49

vacri wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$180 isn't much of a fine, especially since it can be covered by 50% of a $15/month membership charge. $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.

The general argument against raising fines alongside wealth is that it might actually be "efficient" for people to break the law and incur the fine. If the act you're trying to prevent can only cause, say, a thousand dollars of damage then it doesn't make sense to have the price go much beyond that. For instance if you're about to make a billion dollar deal but you have to run through a turnstyle to do it, society as…

Post by Executor » Sun, Jun 01, 2014, 3:37 PM UTC

hagbardgroup wrote: post #30

scotty79 wrote: post #14

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…

Because we use accounting to measure how equipment is used and decide how to allocate resources efficiently. 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 se…