> I always found it odd that the rhetoric around transportation was that it should make money. We don't expect other parts of the government to turn a profit. Why transportation?
That sounds like a straw man. This probably varies, but where I'm from public transport is about half funded by ticket sales and half subsidized by tax payers (some of whom don't use public transport).
The reasons I'm aware of againt free public transport are (1) the economist view that a free service (that in reality costs money to operate) leads to inefficient and wasteful use and (2) the city-planner view that over long term free public transport leads to thinly spread out residential land use development which in turn leads to high infrastructure costs for roads, pipes, electricity, schools, etc. and also emissions as not everyone will use public transport for all their trips.
I think free public transport is an interesting thought especially give various modern challenges, but seems prone to shallow argumentation that doesn't quite match the complex dynamics of the matter itself.
That sounds like a straw man. This probably varies, but where I'm from public transport is about half funded by ticket sales and half subsidized by tax payers (some of whom don't use public transport).
The reasons I'm aware of againt free public transport are (1) the economist view that a free service (that in reality costs money to operate) leads to inefficient and wasteful use and (2) the city-planner view that over long term free public transport leads to thinly spread out residential land use development which in turn leads to high infrastructure costs for roads, pipes, electricity, schools, etc. and also emissions as not everyone will use public transport for all their trips.
I think free public transport is an interesting thought especially give various modern challenges, but seems prone to shallow argumentation that doesn't quite match the complex dynamics of the matter itself.