Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

LeoMarius t1_iu48r9x wrote

Reply to comment by thezhgguy in Metro Exploring Short-Term Fare Hikes And Long-Term Fare Overhauls by Maxcactus

Then why have fares at all?

6

predictablepants t1_iu49ggx wrote

very good point, there shouldn’t be fares for public transportation

6

justarandumthrowaway t1_iu4xzyb wrote

There’s always a virtue signaling response like this. Yah then the system would be instantly overloaded and a expenses would shoot thru the roof. Private businesses/delivery ppl could subsidize certain transportation expenses onto the taxpayer. Congrats you just bankrupt the wmata

−2

turnageb1138 t1_iu59cet wrote

You clearly don't understand anything about how any of this works.

2

justarandumthrowaway t1_iu5djc9 wrote

I welcome your expertise in United States mass transit systems that operate fare-free

−2

turnageb1138 t1_iu5rn13 wrote

Why the qualification of "in United States"? When it comes to mass transit, and transportation in general, we should be looking to almost anywhere else than the US, because our governments at every level are owned by various corporations and business sectors that profit massively and directly from both car-focused transportation policies and the massive government subsidies, direct and indirect, that they receive through those policies.

In the US, the main places you will find free transit are university campuses. But there are a number of cities who offer varying amounts of free transit, from small buses that run through areas of heavy tourism and shopping, to citywide free buses. Cities in numerous cities worldwide offer free transit for part or all of their users, and quite successfully.

Your assertions in your reply are not based on anything except misconceptions and faulty assumptions. Any given system that relies on fare collection only expects those fares to cover roughly 10% of its budget. Eliminating those fares increases ridership significantly (which is a good thing), and is seen by many as a low-cost but high-impact way to reduce economic inequality.

>Private businesses/delivery ppl could subsidize certain transportation expenses onto the taxpayer.

As for this sentence, I don't know what it means. Businesses already put the expense of employee travel on the employees who have to buy and maintain cars, and the government which builds and maintains roads, etc. And I can't see delivery people ever significantly relying on trains and buses; even if we successfully ban private vehicles in part or all of the city, commercial delivery vehicles would still likely be allowed, and lots of deliveries in urban areas are made by bike and scooter bikes.

Fare free systems have challenges and would certainly take political capital to enact anywhere in the US. But the net benefits can be significant for business, residents, tourists, everyone. Given our climate crisis, governments should probably be paying and otherwise incentivizing everyone possible to take transit rather than private cars. Just saying you have a robust transportation network that's FREE has difficult to measure benefits for attracting both residents and businesses, which in turn grows the tax base to fund just such a system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/02/free-public-transportation-is-a-reality-in-100-citiesheres-why.html

https://qz.com/2048165/american-cities-are-experimenting-with-free-public-transit

https://www.inverse.com/culture/free-public-transportation-scientific-studies

2

justarandumthrowaway t1_iu5vnlk wrote

Why? Because the United States has very different laws and tax codes than other countries? You don’t understand why we can’t just copy/paste stuff from other countries here? Yes, there are some places in the us that have fare-free service, but to compare those to a multi-state transit system like wmata is simply disingenuous.

Oh yah, your sources are Wikipedia and news articles retrieved from Google, along with yet again more virtue signaling about why free public transit is great. Yes, I agree, in an ideal world we all take the metro/bus everywhere and no one needs cars. But how are you realistically gonna make that happen. I’ve live in Asia for over a year and trust me I’d love to have no car. But to just say ‘let’s have no fares transit’ is such a leap it just doesn’t make sense.

My example is literally just one thing I thought of off the top of my head. If you can’t see the potential pitfalls of having no fares in a the wmata idk what to say. Sure, no one can predict the future. Maybe a fare free metro is amazing and it works out perfect, or maybe it falls apart and is rife with safety, reliability, and corruption issues.

350mm a yr in fares is a lot to make up for. Plus, as you hope, when literally everyone is riding the metro that will increase costs. And you’re misrepresenting facts by saying ‘it only represents 10% of the budget’. It represents 78.3% of operating budget.

0

turnageb1138 t1_iu5x649 wrote

This is why I have to remember not to write serious replies to trolls. Your use of the phrase "virtue signaling" alone means your opinion is discarded. Bye.

−1

justarandumthrowaway t1_iu5xn4k wrote

Lol your the one lying about the facts there buddy. Keep on with what makes you feel good about yourself you probably need it

1

turnageb1138 t1_iu59q8v wrote

Good question, with a complicated answer, but in truth the answer is that there's no good reason. For a myriad of reasons, public transit in DC (and everywhere) should be a public service run by the government and free for all users.

4

thezhgguy t1_iu493mn wrote

Good question, metro should probably be a public service and gov’t subsidized to be free for DC residents

2