I don't know if free public transit is necessarily the right way, but my concern of it having fees is that it is in stark contrast with the other cost of transport - roads.
Most roads are 'free' - and this 'free' part results in the same as issues as above. Wear and tear is higher, congestion increases impacting others, slowing down of the system, 'vandalism' in the form of littering, speeding and car crashes.
Moreover, roads are also not charged per user - so a family typically has much higher costs to use transit than a car. This creates highly skewed incentives that reduce economic output.
If every road had a toll, then there would be less of an incentive contrast.
Nice piece here Andrew. Generally speaking, there is little benefit to trying to run or hide from the “price signals” that determine the value of a good or service.
Someone always pays for it, somewhere. The question is who.
In most cities (and certainly where the majority of people are auto-dependent), the motorists / passengers seem to get really angry at spending "taxpayers' money" (i.e. their hard-earned dollars) on other modes like public transit, bike lanes, etc. I would expect the political baggage associated with the majority's view of "freeloaders" to weigh heavily on elected officials' willingness to embrace no-fare transit. Even the argument that more people on transit will translate to less congested traffic doesn't hold water with the public; as you've noted, free transit doesn't necessarily attract a lot of motorists out of their cars.
And remember, nothing is "free"; somebody will have to pay for transit. In this case, it will be "the taxpayer", the majority of whom will be paying for something they don't use. Even at current rates of subsidy, taxpayers (through their representatives, elected officials) grumble about the amount of money put into transit.
Why don't we have fabulous public transit - fast, convenient, frequent - all over our cities? Because elected officials think that taxpayers don't want to spend the amount of money that would accomplish that goal. I'd suggest motorists (i.e. the majority in places like Burlington) would be just as happy to not have any public transit service at all.
So, as you've noted, our entire transportation system is financially out of whack, with fares / fees / tolls / taxes used completely ineptly with regard to creating a fair, equitable, efficient, high-quality mobility situation. Transit fares - free or otherwise - are unfortunately caught up in this big picture fiasco, and no-fare transit would make it even worse.
And what are the disadvantages of free health care? The first and biggest one is that it increases usage.
That may seem perverse. Didn't we already cite increased medical care as a good thing? It’s complicated. Increased health care can also lead to all sorts of problems.
More patients mean:
* more dirt
* more litter
* more vandalism,
* higher utility costs, and
* faster deterioration of medical devices.
Furthermore:
* You have to build more clinics
* You have to hire more doctors
* Well-off patients have to share the facilities with riff-raff.
Most importantly:
* Since patients don't have to pay, all of the burden falls on the taxpayers.
An interesting argument. To accept it, we have to accept that transit and health care are analogous in other respects. I am not sure that they are.
For instance, the health care system does not induce demand the way that transport systems do. Sick and hurt people want care to get well, but well people don't want health care to get "better than well". And if they do want that, like via some kinds of cosmetic procedures, we expect people to pay for those procedures themselves.
Another instance: we don't have competing medical systems, typically. Everyone in Canada gets access to 'free' health care, but there's only one system for everybody. Everyone in the USA insured with a single insurance provider, like Kaiser, has to stay 'in network', they can't pick and choose their care. But there is no such monopoly in urban transport: one can take the bus, or a bike, or a taxi, or a private car, or they can walk. Forcing a poor person to pay high taxes to operate a transit system that cannot take them where they want to go, in order to subsidize a rich person's subway ride, seems perverse.
Still, it's worth thinking about. Thanks for writing.
It seems incredibly cynical to claim people dont appreciate things that are free. It also seems wrong to make the blanket claim that increased ridership adds costs. This will be true in part, but the overall wear and tear on a bus carrying 2 riders would not be very different from 10.
Regarding your first point, I can't say if it's cynical or not, but as I noted, the systems who went fare-free later brought fares back, and cited increased rowdiness and bad behaviour from patrons as the reason. I think it's fair to characterize spikes in bad behaviour from users as evidence that those users didn't value, or had stopped valuing, the service they were getting.
Regarding your second point, you're correct. As I wrote: "These costs have always increased with ridership, in indirect fashion; each new rider at the margin typically brings more fare revenue than they impose in costs, so ridership growth is in an operator's interest. But going fare-free removes all fare revenue even as it supercharges ridership, meaning that net operating costs skyrocket."
Good coverage of all the arguments!
I don't know if free public transit is necessarily the right way, but my concern of it having fees is that it is in stark contrast with the other cost of transport - roads.
Most roads are 'free' - and this 'free' part results in the same as issues as above. Wear and tear is higher, congestion increases impacting others, slowing down of the system, 'vandalism' in the form of littering, speeding and car crashes.
Moreover, roads are also not charged per user - so a family typically has much higher costs to use transit than a car. This creates highly skewed incentives that reduce economic output.
If every road had a toll, then there would be less of an incentive contrast.
All true! The way we charge, and pay for, roads is inequitable. But at least there is now a prospect of change, at least, as fuel taxes wither.
Nice piece here Andrew. Generally speaking, there is little benefit to trying to run or hide from the “price signals” that determine the value of a good or service.
Someone always pays for it, somewhere. The question is who.
Amen.
This is a really great argument, Andrew. You actually managed to change my mind.
Some thoughts:
In most cities (and certainly where the majority of people are auto-dependent), the motorists / passengers seem to get really angry at spending "taxpayers' money" (i.e. their hard-earned dollars) on other modes like public transit, bike lanes, etc. I would expect the political baggage associated with the majority's view of "freeloaders" to weigh heavily on elected officials' willingness to embrace no-fare transit. Even the argument that more people on transit will translate to less congested traffic doesn't hold water with the public; as you've noted, free transit doesn't necessarily attract a lot of motorists out of their cars.
And remember, nothing is "free"; somebody will have to pay for transit. In this case, it will be "the taxpayer", the majority of whom will be paying for something they don't use. Even at current rates of subsidy, taxpayers (through their representatives, elected officials) grumble about the amount of money put into transit.
Why don't we have fabulous public transit - fast, convenient, frequent - all over our cities? Because elected officials think that taxpayers don't want to spend the amount of money that would accomplish that goal. I'd suggest motorists (i.e. the majority in places like Burlington) would be just as happy to not have any public transit service at all.
So, as you've noted, our entire transportation system is financially out of whack, with fares / fees / tolls / taxes used completely ineptly with regard to creating a fair, equitable, efficient, high-quality mobility situation. Transit fares - free or otherwise - are unfortunately caught up in this big picture fiasco, and no-fare transit would make it even worse.
[transit as health care]
And what are the disadvantages of free health care? The first and biggest one is that it increases usage.
That may seem perverse. Didn't we already cite increased medical care as a good thing? It’s complicated. Increased health care can also lead to all sorts of problems.
More patients mean:
* more dirt
* more litter
* more vandalism,
* higher utility costs, and
* faster deterioration of medical devices.
Furthermore:
* You have to build more clinics
* You have to hire more doctors
* Well-off patients have to share the facilities with riff-raff.
Most importantly:
* Since patients don't have to pay, all of the burden falls on the taxpayers.
An interesting argument. To accept it, we have to accept that transit and health care are analogous in other respects. I am not sure that they are.
For instance, the health care system does not induce demand the way that transport systems do. Sick and hurt people want care to get well, but well people don't want health care to get "better than well". And if they do want that, like via some kinds of cosmetic procedures, we expect people to pay for those procedures themselves.
Another instance: we don't have competing medical systems, typically. Everyone in Canada gets access to 'free' health care, but there's only one system for everybody. Everyone in the USA insured with a single insurance provider, like Kaiser, has to stay 'in network', they can't pick and choose their care. But there is no such monopoly in urban transport: one can take the bus, or a bike, or a taxi, or a private car, or they can walk. Forcing a poor person to pay high taxes to operate a transit system that cannot take them where they want to go, in order to subsidize a rich person's subway ride, seems perverse.
Still, it's worth thinking about. Thanks for writing.
>>average consoles the fact<<
conceals
Fixed. Thanks!
It seems incredibly cynical to claim people dont appreciate things that are free. It also seems wrong to make the blanket claim that increased ridership adds costs. This will be true in part, but the overall wear and tear on a bus carrying 2 riders would not be very different from 10.
Thanks for writing, Ralph.
Regarding your first point, I can't say if it's cynical or not, but as I noted, the systems who went fare-free later brought fares back, and cited increased rowdiness and bad behaviour from patrons as the reason. I think it's fair to characterize spikes in bad behaviour from users as evidence that those users didn't value, or had stopped valuing, the service they were getting.
Regarding your second point, you're correct. As I wrote: "These costs have always increased with ridership, in indirect fashion; each new rider at the margin typically brings more fare revenue than they impose in costs, so ridership growth is in an operator's interest. But going fare-free removes all fare revenue even as it supercharges ridership, meaning that net operating costs skyrocket."