if you ask me all public transportation should be free

^Mainly due to tradition. Many public transit companies began as private companies that were acquired by a government. The private companies charged tolls, and the governments carried on the same tradition.

 

Most public transportation companies are "subsidized" (why are highways "funded" and transit "subsidized?) by the government from some other source of funding. For example, in some jurisdictions the transit revenue from fares is supplemented by an income tax, or a grant from the federal or state government. The crazy thing is that the percentage of revenue that comes from fares is very low, often under 20%. Why not just cut service by 20% and make it free?

 

It is conceivable that cities could initiate free public transportation, funded by property or income tax, and come out ahead on the deal, but I doubt that it is likely to happen in any city that also offers "free" motorways. What if motorways were tolled while public transporation was free? New York City leans this way, since revenue from the bridge and tunnel tolls is used to partially fund their mass transit.

 

"If you want to make enemies, try to change something."

- Woodrow Wilson

^^ there are some places with free public transportation but they tend to be resort towns, like Vail, CO.  Generally, I would imaging if a place has a substantial amount of tourists and can collect a good amount off property taxes then it can be done.

 

 

I swear, some of you guys are completely out of touch with reality. The reason Public Transit isn't 100% free (and SHOULDN'T BE) is because Streetcars, Buses and Trains would turn into Mobile Homeless Shelters. Not only would the bus reak of Malt Liquor and p!ss but twice as many buses woudl be required to acommodate the extremely high ridership.

 

Two dollars really isn't much to ask in order to get from Point A to Point B.

1. $2 (or $1.50 or whatever) is more than would be necessary to prevent the "mobile homeless shelter" phenomenon from happening.

 

2. That's especially true when it comes to monthly passes (which in Cincy amount to paying for two trips per workday...i.e. no discount).

 

3. Needing more buses, etc., to accommodate "extremely high ridership" would hardly be a bad thing.

3. Needing more buses, etc., to accommodate "extremely high ridership" would hardly be a bad thing.

 

Except that, if the fare is $0, additional riders do not bring in additional revenue to fund additional buses.  If transit/government agencies were willing to up their financial support as ridership increased, it wouldn't be a problem.

It takes people out of their cars (reducing congestion, pollution, etc.) and allows less infrastructure to serve more people.