| ▲ | triceratops 5 hours ago |
| MTA already has a half-price program for low-income people. I agree fare jumpers don't need jail but they need some punishment. Make them clean the station and pick up trash for an hour, right then and there (I'm just spitballing). Otherwise it's unfair to law-abiding people. |
|
| ▲ | jacquesm 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I think public transport should be free. That solves the whole problem because it makes no sense to dis-incentivize the use of public transport to begin with and the fares are disproportionally hard on the lowest earners. |
| |
| ▲ | triceratops 10 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > it makes no sense to dis-incentivize the use of public transport to begin with MTA serves NYC. People who can't even afford the subway are definitely not driving over there. | |
| ▲ | kccqzy an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Absolutely not. People don’t appreciate free things psychologically. When they don’t appreciate it they trash it: vandalism, littering will all become bigger problems. To prevent this effect, you have to have a well educated population first. That’s actually an even more difficult problem to solve. | | |
| ▲ | jimmaswell 25 minutes ago | parent [-] | | This isn't a big problem for roads, sidewalks, or the library. | | |
| ▲ | kccqzy 3 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Roads aren’t really free: you need a car or at least a bike. Sidewalks are free, but they are usually unpleasant. In places where the sidewalks are pleasant, they absolutely get trashed by litter and spitting. Libraries are seemingly free, but getting a library card often requires you to provide several forms of proof of address, including evidence of paying rent or property taxes. So they aren’t truly free. |
|
| |
| ▲ | tempestn 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's unfortunate, but one problem with free public transport absent other changes is that then it becomes de facto free shelter, which degrades the service for people using it as transport. | | |
| ▲ | dpc050505 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That wouldn't be an issue if we also provided shelter to the most distressed people in our society. As if we don't have the technology to build housing on the cheap. Our lack of communal will to help fellow people is a real shame. | | |
| ▲ | jdietrich 11 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Homelessness only partially overlaps with what British authorities euphemistically refer to as "street lifestyles". The people you see blacked out in the gutter or ranting wildly on a subway car are disproportionately likely to be homeless, but their behaviour is not the result of homelessness - many of them do in fact have a stable home and most of the rest would continue to behave in an antisocial manner even if they were adequately housed. The problem of persistent disorderly conduct by a small minority of highly disturbed people is either an unfathomably complex psychiatric issue, or a fairly straightforward carceral issue. | |
| ▲ | saimiam 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | to offer free public transport to people, we now have to solve housing at a societal level. To solve housing, we have to fix zoning laws. to fix zoning laws, we have to fix NIMBY-ism which needs partisanship to be solved. To fix partisanship... | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > to offer free public transport to people, we now have to solve housing at a societal level. To solve housing, we have to fix zoning laws. to fix zoning laws, we have to fix NIMBY-ism which needs partisanship to be solved. To fix partisanship... Aren't half of these wrong? NIMBY-ism isn't particularly partisan. Find a suburb and it's probably full of NIMBY zoning rules regardless of which party has the majority there. This is one of the things which isn't red vs. blue, it's "got mine" vs. the people who don't get a vote because they can't afford to live there because they don't get a vote. You also don't have to "solve housing the societal level" to keep the homeless from using the subway as a bedroom. That's the better way to do that, but you can also do things like build homeless shelters that resemble (and therefore have the density of) college dorms in places where the "neighbors" are auto salvage yards, warehouses, prisons, abandoned buildings or the like and are correspondingly less likely to object to putting them there. And then anyone you catch being disruptive on the subway gets a free one-way ticket to the shelter. | |
| ▲ | makeitdouble an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Shelter should be, but doesn't need to be housing. When people fear that public transportation becomes shelter they're not arguing houses will be built in train stations. Having other places with a roof, some security and some public amenities should go a long way to avoid other services getting bogged down by homelessness. | |
| ▲ | alsetmusic an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Why shouldn't we have exactly the ambitions you're using as an argument against change? I support all of those proposals. The richest nation in history could do all of that easily if there was the will to do so. If giving away free public services could be grifted to increase the bottom line of the ultra wealthy, we'd have a utopian society. | |
| ▲ | garciasn an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I absolutely despise the world we live in where the default answer to everything is effectively “no.” I wish we could get to a point where we default to “yes” and find solutions rather than making it easier to say “no.” | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm an hour ago | parent [-] | | It's worse than that even. It is 'things are bad, therefore we can't begin to improve'. Weirdly enough that never goes in the other direction. The day that people realize that people without a lot of money are also people things will start to improve. And this is rather more than less likely to happen because I suspect there will be a lot more people without a lot of money soon compared to today. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jacquesm 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Another commenter already made the same observation. See reply there. | |
| ▲ | linsomniac 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >it becomes de facto free shelter So? Let it. If people need shelter, it's a shame we are building a ballroom instead of shelter. | | |
| |
| ▲ | bigDinosaur 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's nice to have an opinion but free public transport causes many issues and isn't great policy, it actually means transport agencies have less money to invest and take out debt on as system use increases which is a very bad position financially. The same issues actually apply to roads as well and are a reason things like congestion taxes are a good idea. | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | So, explain why it works in 100+ cities all over the world? Congestion taxes are completely different from ticket fees. | | | |
| ▲ | bigfatkitten 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Fares typically make a negligible contribution to the overall costs of operating the system. Public transport in the state of Queensland, Australia charges a flat fare of 50 cents. They only reason they charge anything at all is because they want the trip data for route planning purposes. | |
| ▲ | porkshoe 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Free public transport solves many issues and is a great policy. The notion that transit agencies need to be funded via fares is nonsense to begin with, but it looks even wackier when one looks at how roads are funded. |
| |
| ▲ | slyall 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Free public transport takes away money that can be used to improve service for everyone. Someone on minimum wage would prefer a bus they can actually use to get to work rather than having to buy/maintain a car because the free bus only comes once an hour. Have targeted low fares for the poor etc. | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Of course it doesn't. The cost of public transport is a cost to society. It will be paid regardless of ticket fees. Hence the word 'public' in 'public transport'. The difference is that by making the users of public transport pay you give people a good reason not to use it when there are alternatives available. But those alternatives have a hard time competing with free. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport It exists, and it works. And the best bit: all the money spent on the whole administration around tickets, making tickets, enforcing laws, gates and so on can be spent on improving the system. | | |
| ▲ | saimiam 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > all the money spent you mean all the money saved? The unspent money are only a factor in the year following the year when the non-spend started. After that, no one will remember that they used to spend to some big figure on all the things you listed and assume that the operating budget of the transport agency has always been the lower figure. |
| |
| ▲ | djsjajah 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Go have a look what percentage of the operating costs are covered by fares in your city. I wouldn't be surprised if the costs relating to fare enforcement were more than the revenue from fares. | | |
| ▲ | bigDinosaur 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | You aren't taking into account that transport agencies can raise a lot of funding based on yearly revenue so multiplying fares out in terms of the debt that can be serviced yearly can easily reach billions which can be used for capital investment. | | |
| ▲ | dwattttt 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I can't tell what you're saying; are you saying that "yearly revenue from fares is big", even when someone says "fares aren't the major revenue source, and sometimes doesn't even exceed the cost to implement"? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | bongoman42 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The problem with free public transport is that it turns into a de facto homeless shelter. And then it isn't safe to use anymore. You let people evade fares and then those people go onto stab people like Zarutska. | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's a different problem, and it requires a solution by itself. > You let people evade fares and then those people go onto stab people like Zarutska. That has nothing to do with it. The guy that committed that murder wasn't going to be deterred by a ticket fee. But it is interesting that you should right away jump from the one to the other, effectively using the poor dead girl for your agenda. Crime and homelessness are complex problems some parts of which are easy to solve and some of which are much harder. You can't simply jump from 'someone got murdered on public transport' to 'public transport can't be free'. | | |
| ▲ | bretthoerner an hour ago | parent [-] | | https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2026/news20260908 | | |
| ▲ | alsetmusic an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I ride BART. I'm two blocks from a busy transfer station. It's great for going to a show and getting home without driving (drunk). Arguing that modern fare gates lowered crime is a pretty terrible response to the comment to which you responded. It shows a real lack of articulation ("crime bad, crime down here, therefore I don't need to refute what you said"). The original poster said: > The guy that committed that murder wasn't going to be deterred by a ticket fee. I don't see how lower crime on BART due to fewer people hopping the turnstiles refutes that at all. (Huh, I just learned turnstiles is spelled with an I and not a Y. At least your comment led to me learning something.) It just seems defeatist, which is what the people looting this country want. | |
| ▲ | jacquesm an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can cut crime all the way down to zero by shutting down all transport. You could decrease it to a very low minimum by setting a $100 / trip fare. But then it wouldn't be public transport anymore. |
|
| |
| ▲ | ninjagoo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The problem with free public transport is that it turns into a de facto homeless shelter. Perhaps there's something broken about a society that has a significant homelessness issue. The free public transport isn't the problem, it's likely that society has a surplus of citizens that prevent economic progress and/or the deployment of solutions known to be effective against homelessness. | |
| ▲ | overfeed 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The problem with free public transport is that it turns into a de facto homeless shelter. I don't think $2.50 is what's preventing this from happening today. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | tomrod 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Or make the transportation free, then you don't have to worry about policing infractions and instead spend the low effort policing money on cleaning, security, and improvement. |
| |
| ▲ | triceratops 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There's an argument that making people pay a fare improves cleanliness and security to an extent. I don't know if there are studies about it. But it's a persuasive argument. | | |
| ▲ | ninjagoo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > But it's a persuasive argument. Persuasive to what type of people? | | |
| ▲ | triceratops 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Even to a lefty liberal like me. But I'm open to data that, actually, it'll turn out fine. What doesn't work is laws that aren't enforced. Either enforce them or repeal them. |
| |
| ▲ | NewJazz 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | At that point just make separate no fee, low fee, and high fee train cars with varying levels of poor people and/or cleanliness. | | |
| ▲ | black_knight 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The class system… such a classic! | | |
| ▲ | NewJazz 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You kid, and it would be kinda horrible in certain ways, but I genuinely think it would increase ridership significantly. Let's face it, classism right now manifests as: * poor folk use terrible public transit * med income folk drive cars * high income/wealth folk get driven around by robots or staff At least with the classist train you cut down on emissions and public funds spent fixing roads. And I'd argue it's a bit less unequal than the status quo in 95% of the US. | |
| ▲ | saimiam 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do you not take flights to travel between cities because they are classist? |
| |
| ▲ | deadonarrival 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ah yes, a caste system on tracks. That will surely work | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | black_knight 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Ah, yes, the cost of the price is rarely considered. Think of the money society would save just in not having to pay up for the payment system! | |
| ▲ | mediaman 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is a great way to destroy public transit! The plan is to let anyone on the subway, with no fares. It turns out that the violent, unstable people who make public spaces unwelcoming are disproportionately represented among those who cannot pay $2.50 for a fare. So they scare off regular transit riders who mode shift to something else. It's vastly more expensive and difficult to react to violence on the subway than to keep violent people out with a small fare, so it's financially and logistically impossible to actually keep it safe. Then your transit ridership tanks and people who hate funding transit can declare the whole thing a giant waste of money and any new funding dies politically because now there's no public ridership constituency left. Nobody cares about the revenue gained from $2.50 fares. What matters is the tiny amount of resistance that offers to the small number of people who are largely responsible for making public transit unwelcoming. | | |
| ▲ | ninjagoo 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > It's vastly more expensive and difficult to react to violence on the subway than to keep violent people out with a small fare Are you making a case that a violent person, who ignores the stringent laws of society against violence, will diligently follow the laws of society requiring $2.50 prior to riding public transport? LOL | | |
| ▲ | saimiam 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Your argument is like saying I won't put a basic privacy lock on my gym locker because, you know, a creep wanting to sift through my things is going to do it anyway. There is a cost benefit analysis that even serial offenders go through to pick a victim. If a transit system insists on fares, it is likely they are watching out for fare dodgers which increases the risk of getting caught even before the offender gets a chance to offend. | | |
| ▲ | ninjagoo an hour ago | parent [-] | | > There is a cost benefit analysis that even serial offenders go through to pick a victim Are you making the case that a society unable to protect its denizens from violent offenders in broader society will be able to protect its denizens on public transport from those same violent offenders through the application of a $2.50 fare? Hmm. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | justsomehnguy 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There is too much communism in this sentence. | |
| ▲ | tyrabound 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | omgwtfbyobbq 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Or fund it fully through taxes, like roads, schools, etc... | | |
| ▲ | thesmtsolver2 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | A lot of roads have tolls. Don’t forget more specific taxes like gas taxes or vehicle registration and sales taxes. |
| |
| ▲ | sanswork 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Or you know run it as a public service like the roads. We are able to do that without enslaving road maintenance employees. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | loumf 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The cop made me call my mom on a pay phone and 40 years later I still have to hear about it. Cruel and unusual. |
| |
| ▲ | Obscurity4340 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | One made me call my Dad to spite my psycho mother who dragged me tothe Station thinking the cop was gonna scare me straight ratherthen the outcome of him seeing her insanity and pleading with me to stay in contact with the only responsible adult in the room who wouldnt screw me over for the rest of my natura life It was all very vindicating |
|
|
| ▲ | c22 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Make them clean the station and pick up trash... This should just be an established way to pay your fare. |
|
| ▲ | roosterIllusi0n 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Then charge them cleanly and don't artificially try to inflate charges. It is the duty of any jury to let someone off when they feel its malicious prosecution. Police, Prosecutors, and Judges all openly use their discretion. Each of them could have quashed the charge before it got to a jury. The jury is the last line of discretion. Police, prosecutors, and judges love to call it "jury nullification" but its the same power that police, prosecutors, and judges use multiple times a day. The only crime I see is that police arrested an innocent person on false evidence, prosecutors charged someone based on false evidence, and a judge is actually allowing this case to proceed all based on evidence that everyone knows is false. |
|
| ▲ | selfsimilar 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| There should be some teeth, but also we should be prepared for a small amount of "unfairness" baked into the system. If there are no controls, everyone will cheat. But if there's too many obstacles (turnstiles, checkpoints, conductors, cameras, etc) then people won't want to ride. |
| |
| ▲ | jacquesm 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > If there are no controls, everyone will cheat. That just isn't true. Not even remotely. |
|
