Dean MatsuedaAug 4, 2023
🚲

“The reason most public transportation is seen as ‘losing’ money is precisely because it charges for trips. If you don't charge fares, suddenly it can't ‘lose’ money. It just costs money, the same as the roads.”

This random comment has given me my new favourite argument for removing fares from public transit.

Feb 26, 2023 at 8:34pmWeb
Show thread🚲Feb 26, 2023

If you want to see what a road looks like when it doesn’t lose money, look at the 407 in Toronto, which costs $0.50 per kilometre to drive along (about $0.58 USD per mile in freedom units)

(And that has a lot of mitigating factors even so)

Show threadDaniel GibsonFeb 27, 2023

@dx
to be fair, you have to pay taxes on your car and on gasoline, so it's not like cars are necessarily a net negative from an "income for state vs its spending on roads etc" point of view..

(I'm all for free public transit, I just think that this particular argument seems a bit.. simplicistic?)

Show thread🚲Feb 27, 2023
@Doomed_Daniel @dx I think you’ll find any rigorous accounting of the cost of cars on society to not be in cars’ favour. Smarter people than us have already crunched the numbers.
Show threadDaniel GibsonFeb 27, 2023

@dx
that's possible, but if you try to take all factors into account, the calculation is gonna get incredibly complex and thus easier to disregard..
I think there's also calculations that say that free public transportation would be a net-benefit even financially, but those too seem to be too complex to convince anyone in charge :-/

Yes, this sucks: Simplistic arguments don't work well (when their gaps are easily spotted), but neither do complex ones

Show threadNemoFeb 27, 2023
@Doomed_Daniel @dx I don't think we should assume that an argument is too complex for "the people in charge". But simply that having something not privatized and commodified goes against the hegemonic believe that the market economy improves everyone's living standards and thus should rule over all.
Show threadHatbringerFeb 27, 2023

@tagtraeumernemo @Doomed_Daniel @dx
I would argue that it is primarily policy that leads to the market valuing automobiles, not the other way around. Most roads, after all, are publicly owned as are automobile insurance companies. People drive cars because our environments are car centric.

I think the first step to reducing car dependency has to come from up top. People will value cars less when the alternatives are better.

Show threadNemoFeb 27, 2023
@Hatbringer @Doomed_Daniel @dx well, yes and no. Policies are mostly done in favour of those who provide the best incentives. To the policy makers. I think the technical term is lobbying. And it's a self-replicating power dynamic that the automobile industrialists profit the most from current transport policies and use their profits to incentivize current/further policies in their favour.
Show threadNemoFeb 27, 2023
@Hatbringer @Doomed_Daniel @dx also reducing car dependency doesn't *have* to come from the top and tbh probably won't.
Show threadJoeChipFeb 27, 2023
@tagtraeumernemo
Reducing car dependency will necessarily involve state action, just as increasing it did.
Show threadKneworldodorAug 3, 2023
@JoeChip @tagtraeumernemo increasing car centric society was government and corporations working together. There is a long history of this while government direction seems to follow representing the citizens just enough to avoid revolt and provide the illusion of democracy.
Show threadHatbringerFeb 27, 2023
@tagtraeumernemo @Doomed_Daniel @dx While lobbying undoubtedly plays a factor in the automobile's success, I suspect it primarily targets things like oil exploration and vehicle emission standards. I believe that if real changes are to come, it will be from more local levels of governance, which are more resistant to corporate influence. A mayor who closes motorways in favor of a subway station will do far more than anything at a federal level, I think.
Show threadbemmesrNov 15, 2024
@tagtraeumernemo @Doomed_Daniel @dx
The thing is that a market economy really is best for everyone, IF you're willing to wait decades or centuries for your particular problem to be solved. The market moves too slowly and in the meantime people are dealing with problems that can't wait. This is exactly the type of situation that government intervention is for.
Show threadテンセイ ・ tensei Feb 27, 2023
@Doomed_Daniel @dx What's their kickback, though? Public benefit is not always personal benefit (which is why we should require those in charge to divest their investments/stakes in private sector)
Show threadBen AvelingAug 2, 2023
@Doomed_Daniel @dx We don't need an exactly correct answer. A roughly good enough one is enough.
Show threadhschmaleFeb 27, 2023

@dx @Doomed_Daniel cars are an unnecessary evil. Let's build the world we want to live in for tomorrow.

Free public transit funded by a massive toll on drivers and parking. In fact all paid parking should be owned by the government. Your parking garage is dead weight loss and only necessary due to the failure of cars.

Show threadDouglas KilpatrickFeb 27, 2023

@Doomed_Daniel @dx the gas tax was supposed to pay for roads, but they stopped increasing it and it no longer does ...

That's not including any externalities. That's just road surface upkeep.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-federal-gas-tax-doesnt-bring-in-enough-money-for-highways-heres-a-way-to-change-how-we-pay-for-it-11605731623

The federal gas tax doesn’t bring in enough money for highways – here’s a way to change how we pay for it

Tax the mile, not the pump

MarketWatch
Show threadDaniel GibsonFeb 27, 2023
@kilpatds @dx
that's most probably different in other countries
Show threadeddFeb 27, 2023
@Doomed_Daniel The way many countries treat cars as a detriment to urban society is also different to how the US treats car traffic. No reason anyone else should take the "cars will save spiritually save us" approach the US has taken. @kilpatds @dx
Show threadsenMar 14, 2023

@Doomed_Daniel @kilpatds @dx Not really, it’s true in many, perhaps even most, places that haven’t begun de-emphasising travel using personal vehicles.

Several governments around the world have been brought down after attempts to increase fuel excise to better match road maintenance expenditure.

Show threadRoseBeanNikkoFeb 27, 2023
@Doomed_Daniel @dx roads are almost always subsidized
Show threadCorinna (versiffte Göre)Feb 27, 2023
@Doomed_Daniel @dx still a car costs society around 5k€ per year (here in Germany) paid in environmental damages, health costs, the vast amount of space for parking etc. Guess it's even more in the US, where parking lots are twice as big as the actual business they belong to.
Show threadJon PENNYCOOKFeb 27, 2023
@Doomed_Daniel @dx
"to be fair, you have to pay taxes on your car and on gasoline"
But these are not paid per journey unlike bus or train fares, so people treat car journeys as effectively free
Show threadEric StovekenFeb 27, 2023

@Doomed_Daniel @dx The argument isn’t an appeal to economics but to semantics. Both ventures have $ going into them.

It’s about perception. Something that is “free” (or more technically taxpayer funded) does not look like it should be profitable. It is simply a public good.

The moment you charge users at point of service you commodify the service in people’s minds. It then incorrectly falls into the same category as a burger joint or toy store.

Show threadJencel PanicAug 3, 2023

@Doomed_Daniel @dx Maybe the road example is not the best, but the argument is precisely that the calculation doesn't matter as long as people get what they want.

Another example is public education, imagine shutting down schools just because they don't make money.

Show threadfear is not a WeltanschauungAug 4, 2023

imagine shutting down schools because they don't make money? i'm sure one of the American presidential hopefuls must have that as part of their platform

@abuseofnotation @Doomed_Daniel @dx

Show threadkatrinaAug 4, 2023
@Doomed_Daniel @dx
In the UK - £40bn in tax receipts from petrol / diesel tax and road tax, £11bn spending on roads maintenance.
Show threadhschmaleFeb 27, 2023
@dx that seems low for freedom unit miles. I thought there were 2 kilometers to a mile. So it should be closer to a dollar.
Show thread🚲Feb 27, 2023
@hschmale about 1.6 km to mile and CAD is weak against US dollar
Show threadBlass Rose Feb 27, 2023
@dx costing a cool 62USD to visit family. cool cool 😬
Show threadmnemonicoverloadFeb 27, 2023
@dx Arguably the only reason the 407 doesn't lose money even at the outrageous price charged is because it was built with taxpayer funds and then sold for a song to private owners.
Show threadEverybody loves GordoFeb 27, 2023
@dx You mean mostly empty nearly all of the time?
Show threadAT-AT Assault 🏳️‍⚧️Feb 26, 2023

@dx

It's the same logic that employees' salaries "cost" the company. No, dipshit, those employees are how your company MAKES money. Without them, all you have is paper that says you own an empty building. So pay them well.

I fucking hate capitalism.

Show threadMWTFeb 27, 2023

@atatassault @dx

Also when your factory has a fire, and you claim to have "lost" money because of the production interruption. No, actually, you didn't lose money, you just didn't earn any.

Show threadlp0 on fire Feb 27, 2023

That puts me in mind of gov.uk's excuse for not giving nurses (and others). a pay rise to properly account for inflation now (without even considering the last decade or so): “it might lead to more inflation”.

In terms of costs, it's “NHS staff pay costs the country”, but so does not having enough NHS staff due to them leaving for higher pay elsewhere.

Show threadgeobeckAug 2, 2023

@lp0_on_fire
Reminds me of the premier of Alberta a few years ago saying that paying the public sector "withdraws money from the economy."

No, Jason, giving no-strings tax breaks to corporations who use that gift to pay dividends, buy back stock, and wind down their local operations withdraws money from the economy!

Show threadMarjorieRNov 11, 2024
@lp0_on_fire increasing their wages so that we pay health service workers properly isn't directly inflationary in the UK as we don't pay at point of use for their services, so they aren't priced in the inflation indices.
Show threadRickd6Feb 26, 2023
@dx in this way it’s a given cost and can be used by everybody to travel the city and support businesses, institutions and get an education wherever they want. We could even have a donation box for those who feel compelled to contribute. Fantastic idea.
Show threadIsraelFeb 26, 2023
@dx I believe that even people who never take public transit benefit from it being there; people, businesses, they all are better when it's there, so taxes rather than fares make far more sense.
Show threadIncident Creator ❎Feb 27, 2023
@dx "Where did that $10m go? Did you check down the back of the sofa?"
Show threadjamie hill🏴‍☠️Feb 27, 2023
@dx what a brilliant reframing! 😮😮😮
Show threadThomas NeuburgerFeb 27, 2023
@dx This is brilliant. Also right.
Show threadDancingfool4btsFeb 27, 2023
@dx Yes!!!!!
Show threadHarold HensonFeb 27, 2023
@dx I doubt that it would work from a PR perspective. However, you are right that it would not be 'public' transportation if the intent was to make money.
Show threadViktorFeb 27, 2023

@dx Freakonomics has a great episode on this. Kansas City actually did it, and it worked out well!

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/should-public-transit-be-free/

Should Public Transit Be Free? - Freakonomics

Should Public Transit Be Free? - Freakonomics

Freakonomics
Show threadPeter Kahn🏳️‍⚧️🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍🌈Feb 27, 2023
@dx also, the profit is ignoring externalities for the transit system that are gains for the municipality: reduced wear on roadways, reduced pollution, getting workers into their jobs (supporting businesses as employees and consumers), and so on. When we draw the boundaries to count only specific costs and benefits we lose the whole story. Public transit is the blood supply.
Show threadStargeezer SmithFeb 27, 2023
@dx
Public transit should be just an overhead cost to the city/state. A likely minor tax adjustment would cover it.
Show threadLassielmrFeb 27, 2023
@stargazersmith the more than 100 cities around the world now offering some form of free public transportation. In my country bus travel is free to all 22yrs olds and younger and all over 60yrs old. The aspiration is to offer it to all. Some E.U. nations already have free public transport for all residents. The objective is to remove cars from the road and reduce carbon emissions. @dx
Show threadStargeezer SmithFeb 27, 2023
@lassielmr @dx
Under the Infrastructure bill, many cities in the U. S. are now offering free bus rides, but I don't know that it's permanent.
Show threadLassielmrFeb 27, 2023
@stargazersmith it makes sense to put in place. Many cities are now introducing low omission zones. If your vehicle doesn't meet the emission standards and isn't exempt, you need to pay a hefty daily charge to drive inside the zone. @dx
Show threadActivistFeb 27, 2023
@lassielmr @dx @stargazersmith How do those 100 cities incentivize the socially responsible form of transport (which is not public transport, it’s cycling)? Public transport is quite harmful to the environment causing huge GHG emissions. The justification for public transport is that it simply enables more ppl to move through a city than what’s possible by cars alone. Getting ppl to cycle should be the goal.
Show threadActivistFeb 27, 2023
@stargazersmith @dx @lassielmr If public transport is going to be gratis, then that can only be a wise move if you also supply people with free bicycle access and pay them to travel that way.
Show thread🚲Feb 27, 2023
@aktivismoEstasMiaLuo @lassielmr @stargazersmith “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” butts out of cars and onto buses is still a win.
Show threadActivistFeb 27, 2023
@dx @stargazersmith @lassielmr Why advocate for good when you can have better? There is a balance & a sweet spot. When students in Europe are asked why they use public transport instead of cycling, the answer is “why would I buy a bicycle when the tram is free or €50/year?” You can only approach perfection by making public transport more expensive than cycling, & cars more expensive than public transport.
Show threadActivistFeb 27, 2023
@lassielmr @stargazersmith @dx And ideally, the gaps should be substantial enough to affect decision making. Non-gratis public transport is about optimum when not heavily subsidized. From there, the best move is to cheapen cycling & tax cars off the road.
Show threadStargeezer SmithFeb 27, 2023

@aktivismoEstasMiaLuo @lassielmr @dx
In general I agree with you. Here in the SW things are pretty spread out, cycling isn't always a good general solution.

I have a son with a disability. He rides the bus as his major transportation. He can't drive or safely ride a bicycle. There are a lot of people in similar situations that city busses service.

Show threadChristopher FailleFeb 27, 2023
@dx It would probably be superfluous for me to observe that it doesn't "just cost.' it costs a specific amount, and that cost is allocated between users and non-users. THAT allocation is affected in a rational direction by the introduction of fares. That would be superfluous, so of course I won't say any of it.
Show threaddorianFeb 27, 2023
@dx @Andrewhinton once i was bored and downloaded a translink (vancouver bc) annual report and determined that abolishing fares would raise taxes by like 20 bucks a month (a monthly pass at the time started at over $100)
Show threadFactsPlsFeb 27, 2023
@dx Interesting concept!