| ▲ | tomrod 5 hours ago |
| 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 34 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. |
|