03 Oct 10
Originally posted by wolfgang59I think most first world nations have the homeless. I think that in many first world nations people have issues trying to find enough money for food. If they weren't having problems with food and shelter, then they wouldn't have issues with transportation.
Good point; food and housing come first, I think most of the first world has that covered through welfare systems. And most have health care.
Next should be transport and utilities.
03 Oct 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziSo where you live, this is the employer's problem? Here it is assumed that if you are applying for a job, you've already figured out a way to get there and home again. Employers may try to work on transportation arrangements if there's a bus strike (which is generally limited to asking people to carpool and perhaps providing a place to post carpool notices), but otherwise it's not within their realm of responsibilities.
that is the employer's problem. if the workplace is out of town or simply a large distance away it is up to the employer to set up cheap or free transportation. again, it is a luxury not a requirement. as an employer i may choose to treat my employees like crap and suffer the consequences.
The problem with buses (in my experience) isn't the cost so much (it's possible to get a low-income pass) but the hours and routes. The buses stop running at a certain time (which depends on the route), and run less often on weekends. When I worked 3-11, I had to leave at 1 on the weekends to get to work on time, and of course I had to get a ride home because the buses stopped around 8:00. The people who tend to need the transportation the most (in this town) are those who take the sort of jobs (retail, service sector, restaurants) that don't only operate during bus hours.
05 Oct 10
Originally posted by no1marauderyes. you won't die if you don't have electricity. and if you are short on money, electricity and hot water will be sacrificed before food. also if you are short on money, you won't get to work with a taxi but take the bus. and if you can't afford the bus you wake up at 4 am and walk to a job, or look for another job closer to where you live or one that offers free transportation or deduction for bus passes
Hot water and electricity are "luxuries"?
05 Oct 10
Originally posted by pawnhandlerwell i went to an interview for a programming job. the firm had its offices in the middle of nowhere out of town. no buses other than one going at unreasonable times in a village nearby. so the employer decided that it would be in his interests if he rented a small buss that would pick up the workers that didn't have a car or didn't want to drive to work rather than have them leave the firm and look for another job.
So where you live, this is the employer's problem? Here it is assumed that if you are applying for a job, you've already figured out a way to get there and home again. Employers may try to work on transportation arrangements if there's a bus strike (which is generally limited to asking people to carpool and perhaps providing a place to post carpool not ...[text shortened]... t of jobs (retail, service sector, restaurants) that don't only operate during bus hours.
it was a benefit, along with having a cantina in the premises. these are minor investments that make the worker happier and more productive. and not having to wake up 4 hours in advance to catch a buss to work is very happiness inducive.
05 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Surely you see the contradictions in this post? The cost of public transport is small for the individual but distributing the tax burden over a larger group of individuals is high?
While the individual pays little for a train or bus ride, the municipality brings in a lot of money from the cumulative effects of all riders paying fares. Replacing that revenue would be very difficult and would require a significant tax increase or cutting back significant other benefits or both. The cities are cash strapped enough as it is. Increasing tolls eep the fares, increase the tolls and reduce taxes.
In short, I do not like the idea at all.
And remember that it would eliminate loads of costs like vending machines, ticket booths, ticket controllers, etc. It would also allow for faster flow of people entering and leaving public transport. If you've been in the metro at rush hour then you know how much exiting bottlenecks large crowds.
05 Oct 10
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaI meant (I thought I made this fairly clear, but I guess I did not) that the cost of public transport is small as compared to other modes of transportation, not that it is insignificant in a vacuum. The primary reasons in the article in the OP focused on making public transport free to encourage its use.
Surely you see the contradictions in this post? The cost of public transport is small for the individual but distributing the tax burden over a larger group of individuals is high?
To encourage its use means to encourage its use over other means of transportation. In virtually all cases, the question that people ask that is going to be influenced by cost of travel is not whether to go somewhere, but how to get there (unless you're talking about long trips, such as air or inter-city train travel).
My point was that the cost of public transportation is already so much lower than private transportation that making it free will only have a marginal impact in getting people to choose public over private transit. Hence, the burden of subsidizing public transit even further is unjustified.
Edit: Cost of administration must be insignificant compared to the revenue it generates. Cutting out fares would also cause hundreds of public sector jobs to be lost. By cutting out fares, you're eliminating a sector of the city economy to subsidize a service for no compelling reason.
Re the last point: I don't know what it's like in Europe, but congestion at the subway gates in NYC is not a major factor.
05 Oct 10
Originally posted by sh76This is false; experiments with free bus travel in Belgium for instance led to a doubling of the amount of passengers.
I meant (I thought I made this fairly clear, but I guess I did not) that the cost of public transport is small [b]as compared to other modes of transportation, not that it is insignificant in a vacuum. The primary reasons in the article in the OP focused on making public transport free to encourage its use.
To encourage its use means to encourage ...[text shortened]... r private transit. Hence, the burden of subsidizing public transit even further is unjustified.[/b]
05 Oct 10
Someone argued in an earlier post that the costs of maintaining ticket machines, inspectors, ticket sellers, ticket barriers, etc, might actually be such that it outweighs the revenue gained from ticket sales; in this sense, making public transport free could actually save taxpayers money. If this were the case, would you then endorse free public transport?
05 Oct 10
Originally posted by sh76I see. So you hinge all of your argument on "I don't think the incentive is high enough" which you basically pulled out of your behind.
I meant (I thought I made this fairly clear, but I guess I did not) that the cost of public transport is small [b]as compared to other modes of transportation, not that it is insignificant in a vacuum. The primary reasons in the article in the OP focused on making public transport free to encourage its use.
To encourage its use means to encourage ...[text shortened]... r private transit. Hence, the burden of subsidizing public transit even further is unjustified.[/b]
However, previous experiments show differently. Like Hasselt in Belgium, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport_in_Hasselt
05 Oct 10
Originally posted by sh76BS. I was there recently and it could get quite slow getting out with just one or two of those metal revolving doors in some stations. I saw several cases of people opening a side door that was for fire emergencies (setting off an alarm) just to exit faster.
Re the last point: I don't know what it's like in Europe, but congestion at the subway gates in NYC is not a major factor.
05 Oct 10
Originally posted by TeinosukeAlso, private transport user impose a negative externality on others by polluting and congesting the roads. While someone who takes the bus instead is decreasing pollution and road congestion. So there's also an argument that public transport should be subsidized and private transport taxed so that individuals internalize those externalities.
Someone argued in an earlier post that the costs of maintaining ticket machines, inspectors, ticket sellers, ticket barriers, etc, might actually be such that it outweighs the revenue gained from ticket sales; in this sense, making public transport free could actually save taxpayers money. If this were the case, would you then endorse free public transport?
05 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaThe NYC subways alone draw over 1.5 billion rides a year, thus generating over $3 billion for the city. And that's without the buses and LIRR. For a cash strapped city to simply forego this revenue on the chance that some people will leave their cars at home to ride and even more crowded system is a concept so ludicrous that there's a reason it's never been seriously discussed. So, yes, the idea is a bad idea and the answer to the OP question is "no."
I see. So you hinge all of your argument on "I don't think the incentive is high enough" which you basically pulled out of your behind.
However, previous experiments show differently. Like Hasselt in Belgium, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport_in_Hasselt
As for the Belgian city, can you determine what share of the increase in ridership was at the expense of car travel as opposed to at the expense of walking or taking other modes of public transportation?
05 Oct 10
Originally posted by sh76Rinse and repeat unfounded assertion. Ok. Nice monologuing with you.
The NYC subways alone draw over 1.5 billion rides a year, thus generating over $3 billion for the city. And that's without the buses and LIRR. For a cash strapped city to simply forego this revenue on the chance that some people will leave their cars at home to ride and even more crowded system is a concept so ludicrous that there's a reason it's never been ser ...[text shortened]... vel as opposed to at the expense of walking or taking other modes of public transportation?
05 Oct 10
Originally posted by PalynkaBBS. I've lived in the area my whole life and your one experience is the exception, not the rule.
BS. I was there recently and it could get quite slow getting out with just one or two of those metal revolving doors in some stations. I saw several cases of people opening a side door that was for fire emergencies (setting off an alarm) just to exit faster.
05 Oct 10
Originally posted by PalynkaWhich assertion was unfounded?
Rinse and repeat unfounded assertion. Ok. Nice monologuing with you.
The ridership? No. That's a fact.
Revenue? No again, another fact.
Never been seriously discussed? Nope. Fact again.
That it's a bad idea? Nope; opinion, not assertion.
Last question? Nope. Question, not assertion.
Of course you have to monologue. With your reading comprehension, dialogue is impossible.