Should public transportation be free?

[Fake Messiah]

If cars are one of the major problems of pollution/ climate change (as well as traffic jams) and we are serious about curbing that problem with a lot of money, shouldn't it be logical then to make public transportation free, especially for electric tramways and electric/ hydrogen buses so that people get more motivated to use it more?

It would be a more realistic solution than waiting until everyone gets an electric car.

Or maybe it could be free until everyone gets an electric car.

[Anomalocaris]

2 problems:

1.  By paying for free public transportation from general tax revenue it creates common cause for both people who don’t need and those prefer not to use public transportation.  This broadens and solidifies opposition against public transportation policy.

2.   Making it completely free means that part of the incremental cost of largely or totally unnecessary trips is also zero, so it incentivizes low value added travels.

If the goal is to reduce polluting ICE car usage, I think directly penalizing the use of ICE cars via tolls and fuel surcharges makes much more economic and policy sense then reducing the ticke of public trans portion much below incremental cost of carrying the passengers.

In principle, penalizing undesirable behavior directly work better than Penalizing everyone to create incentive to lure wrong doers away from wrong doing.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

2 problems:

1.  By paying for free public transportation from general tax revenue it creates common cause for both people who don’t need and those prefer not to use public transportation.  This broadens and solidifies opposition against public transportation policy.

2.   Making it completely free means that part of the incremental cost of largely or totally unnecessary trips is also zero, so it incentivizes low value added travels.

If the goal is to reduce polluting ICE car usage, I think directly penalizing the use of ICE cars via tolls and fuel surcharges makes much more economic and policy sense then reducing the ticke of public trans portion much below incremental cost of carrying the passengers.

In principle, penalizing undesirable behavior directly work better than Penalizing everyone to create incentive to lure wrong doers away from wrong doing.

(bold mine)

In principle, yes. In practical terms, positive reinforcement works better than negative reinforcement in curbing undesirable behaviour. It would be more effective to incentivize people to get them to use public transport than to penalize them for not doing so.

To the OP: Yes.

Boru

[Belacqua]

In principle, penalizing undesirable behavior directly work better than Penalizing everyone to create incentive to lure wrong doers away from wrong doing.

One thing to keep in mind is that building and maintaining roads for cars costs a lot of money. Sometimes people talk as if roads are just naturally occurring things, but of course they are more like big machines that require a huge amount of tax. If the design of the city's transportation prioritizes auto use, then undesirable behavior is being subsidized.

As a non-driver, I could say that I'm being penalized by paying taxes to support all those car users. 

Moving a significant percentage of people from private cars to simple public transportation would lower the amount spent on auto infrastructure.

[Pat Mustard]

2 problems:

1.  By paying for free public transportation from general tax revenue it creates common cause for both people who don’t need and those prefer not to use public transportation.  This broadens and solidifies opposition against public transportation policy.

2.   Making it completely free means that part of the incremental cost of largely or totally unnecessary trips is also zero, so it incentivizes low value added travels.

If the goal is to reduce polluting ICE car usage, I think directly penalizing the use of ICE cars via tolls and fuel surcharges makes much more economic and policy sense then reducing the ticke of public trans portion much below incremental cost of carrying the passengers.

In principle, penalizing undesirable behavior directly work better than Penalizing everyone to create incentive to lure wrong doers away from wrong doing.

Simple solution, make car usage duties high enough to cover free public transport in the short term, then switch to general taxation to cover shortfalls once everybody's on the train. We have to harshly penalise non-environmental modes of transport, including private electric vehicles.

Of course for most countries this would mean massively expanding public transport. Pity Ireland ripped up all its commuter lines in the 50s and 60s.

[Jehanne]

One thing to keep in mind is that building and maintaining roads for cars costs a lot of money.

Concrete is also a significant source of CO2 emissions. Free market capitalism has had over 40 years to solve this problem, and it appears that it just won't. Both Republicans & Democrats are going to carry on until the balloon pops, and when half of modern-day Florida is part of the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, people will complain.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

One thing to keep in mind is that building and maintaining roads for cars costs a lot of money.

Concrete is also a significant source of CO2 emissions.  Free market capitalism has had over 40 years to solve this problem, and it appears that it just won't.  Both Republicans & Democrats are going to carry on until the balloon pops, and when half of modern-day Florida is part of the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, people will complain.

True enough, but the emission associated with concrete are virtually all during the production phase. Once it’s poured and cured, emissions are near enough to zero as makes no odds. This makes existing roads ideal for public transport, primarily electric buses and (with some modifications) electric trains.

Of course, until developed countries significantly reduce fossil fuel use, the carbon savings from public transport are probably a wash.

Boru

[Pat Mustard]

One thing to keep in mind is that building and maintaining roads for cars costs a lot of money.

Concrete is also a significant source of CO2 emissions.  Free market capitalism has had over 40 years to solve this problem, and it appears that it just won't.  Both Republicans & Democrats are going to carry on until the balloon pops, and when half of modern-day Florida is part of the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, people will complain.

Capitalism is by its very natue a system with a short term horizon and one that ignores any external costs.

As I am fond of saying, it is the best economic system apart from all the others.

[onlinebiker]

Walk you pricks.




Signed


The Powers that Be

[Belacqua]

Capitalism is by its very natue a system with a short term horizon and one that ignores any external costs.

As I am fond of saying, it is the best economic system apart from all the others.

One thing that will be difficult to overcome: decades of advertising propaganda telling us that the right car makes us cool, and that cars are symbols of freedom. (Symbols of freedom that you have to labor half your life to pay for.)

There's no capitalist incentive to persuade people that cars should be thought of like wheelchairs -- necessary for those who need them, but not something a free person would choose.

[This sounds better when I say it in Japanese, since a car is kuruma 車, and a wheelchair is a kuruma-isu 車椅子 -- car-chair.]