Why isn't public transport free?

[Sithara007]

Nothing is ever free. Where would the money to run the service come from? Higher taxes. Then people who don't use it are going to be pissed off.

Public transport is heavily subsidized in many of the countries, as it helps in minimizing the vehicle pollution. If more and more people use public transport instead of individual vehicles, then the government will be able to save quite a lot of money.

[1714821202]

1714821202

[1714821202]

1714821202

[1714821202]

1714821202

[1714821202]

1714821202

[1714821202]

1714821202

[mamichula]

Nothing is ever free. Where would the money to run the service come from? Higher taxes. Then people who don't use it are going to be pissed off.

Public transport is heavily subsidized in many of the countries, as it helps in minimizing the vehicle pollution. If more and more people use public transport instead of individual vehicles, then the government will be able to save quite a lot of money.

There are pros and cons to everything. I just feel it would be an issue that will be chaotic because politicians are going to pick sides, and their party are going to choose that side.

[hot_ads]

It  spengs source.

[sportis]

Obviously because there is a big cost(maintenance, wages of employees) which cannot be undertaken from many governments as a social provision. However in some countries like as in my country for some social groups such as pupils, students, unemployed, large families, the elderly, etc. the law gives them the right to pay a reduced ticket which 50% of the regular one.

[GreenBits]

Obviously because there is a big cost(maintenance, wages of employees) which cannot be undertaken from many governments as a social provision. However in some countries like as in my country for some social groups such as pupils, students, unemployed, large families, the elderly, etc. the law gives them the right to pay a reduced ticket which 50% of the regular one.

There is also the assumption that most citizens will have vehicles, and choose the most efficient method of transport (time wise) because of convenience. No one with a car, is gonna wake up 4 hours early to catch 3 bus exchanges to get to work. Otherwise, there would be more people than seats on public transportation, and both the amount of transport, and the cost of transport would have to be raised to keep it together.  Public transportation serves a very specific function; providing transportation to social groups which typically don't possess vehicles (students, elderly, the working poor).

[Forester618]

Nothing is ever free. Where would the money to run the service come from? Higher taxes. Then people who don't use it are going to be pissed off.

Public transport is heavily subsidized in many of the countries, as it helps in minimizing the vehicle pollution. If more and more people use public transport instead of individual vehicles, then the government will be able to save quite a lot of money.

It seems to me that the government only loses money on public transport. You forget that for public transport the government spends money, and the car spent every liter of fuel gives a profit to the government as excise taxes. I'm not talking about the transport tax, etc.

[Fizamcc]

Nothing is ever free. Where would the money to run the service come from? Higher taxes. Then people who don't use it are going to be pissed off.

Public transport is heavily subsidized in many of the countries, as it helps in minimizing the vehicle pollution. If more and more people use public transport instead of individual vehicles, then the government will be able to save quite a lot of money.

It seems to me that the government only loses money on public transport. You forget that for public transport the government spends money, and the car spent every liter of fuel gives a profit to the government as excise taxes. I'm not talking about the transport tax, etc.

And even if you calculate the costs that go to beneficiaries who travel for free, then all public transport can be considered unprofitable.

[mastermold]

No, i don’t think it would sustain itself.

The best is No Profit, No Loss. Also, look at over all profitability, instead of route wise profitability. Otherwise, certain routes would not be started or sustained at all, bringing discomfort to many.

When subsidised, many routes are making loss. So, i think public transport should be following the market. If they don’t public transport bodies find ways to make it profitable at the cost of reliability and wide availability. Example - Giving busses on contract to industries at profitable rates, at the expense of office hour travellers, who have to travel belly to belly at their preferred rates and at much lesser frequency.

[Scott J]

When cars and buses are fully automated with no need for drivers, costs will come down.

Then we could see them possibly becoming free at the point of use.

[Sithara007]

Nothing is ever free. Where would the money to run the service come from? Higher taxes. Then people who don't use it are going to be pissed off.

Public transport is heavily subsidized in many of the countries, as it helps in minimizing the vehicle pollution. If more and more people use public transport instead of individual vehicles, then the government will be able to save quite a lot of money.

It seems to me that the government only loses money on public transport. You forget that for public transport the government spends money, and the car spent every liter of fuel gives a profit to the government as excise taxes. I'm not talking about the transport tax, etc.

If the people use their own vehicles, then the government needs even more money to maintain the roads and the traffic system. Also, the number of accidents will rise, and the people will be late for work as well.

[camelson]

Nothing is ever free. Where would the money to run the service come from? Higher taxes. Then people who don't use it are going to be pissed off.

Public transport is heavily subsidized in many of the countries, as it helps in minimizing the vehicle pollution. If more and more people use public transport instead of individual vehicles, then the government will be able to save quite a lot of money.

There are pros and cons to everything. I just feel it would be an issue that will be chaotic because politicians are going to pick sides, and their party are going to choose that side.

Public transport is a very profitable business in some countries and mostly politicians  and businessmen owned them and they will not let this happen because they will be in a big loss. Even government earn a lot of money by giving tenders of major transport stops annually. Every single industry have one way or the other linked to each other and changing one also causes changes in other industries. 

[Yuuto]

Nothing is ever free. Where would the money to run the service come from? Higher taxes. Then people who don't use it are going to be pissed off.

Public transport is heavily subsidized in many of the countries, as it helps in minimizing the vehicle pollution. If more and more people use public transport instead of individual vehicles, then the government will be able to save quite a lot of money.

There are pros and cons to everything. I just feel it would be an issue that will be chaotic because politicians are going to pick sides, and their party are going to choose that side.

Public transport is a very profitable business in some countries and mostly politicians  and businessmen owned them and they will not let this happen because they will be in a big loss. Even government earn a lot of money by giving tenders of major transport stops annually. Every single industry have one way or the other linked to each other and changing one also causes changes in other industries. 

Exactly!
That is what I always say to my interlocutor when we are speaking about public transport, and how it is expensive in our country- which really sucks.
In the case of public transport being controlled by private companies and businessman: it would be very efficient, and set up to make profits from it.
Also, the tickets  would be cheaper than the transport controlled by authorities, because private company is always trying to generate income.
I would rather support public transport supervised not by government, but by a private groups of people, companies and businessman.

[machinek20]

Nothing is ever free. Where would the money to run the service come from? Higher taxes. Then people who don't use it are going to be pissed off.

Public transport is heavily subsidized in many of the countries, as it helps in minimizing the vehicle pollution. If more and more people use public transport instead of individual vehicles, then the government will be able to save quite a lot of money.

There are pros and cons to everything. I just feel it would be an issue that will be chaotic because politicians are going to pick sides, and their party are going to choose that side.

Public transport is a very profitable business in some countries and mostly politicians  and businessmen owned them and they will not let this happen because they will be in a big loss. Even government earn a lot of money by giving tenders of major transport stops annually. Every single industry have one way or the other linked to each other and changing one also causes changes in other industries. 

Exactly!
That is what I always say to my interlocutor when we are speaking about public transport, and how it is expensive in our country- which really sucks.
In the case of public transport being controlled by private companies and businessman: it would be very efficient, and set up to make profits from it.
Also, the tickets  would be cheaper than the transport controlled by authorities, because private company is always trying to generate income.
I would rather support public transport supervised not by government, but by a private groups of people, companies and businessman.

Most of the public transport is owned by private company, their main goal is to generate income, but by taking our money the company will be forced to provide a better facilities for us, and I think in every country there are never any free ride, all of the operational transportation generate expenses that need to be covered, and if the public transportation is free from the government, the government will need a bunch of money to covered the expenses which can be used to build a more important infrastructure, so I think as long as the transportation fee is not too expensive then it will be fair

[Barrymore]

I am against all free. Only financial interest allows you to get access to quality services and allows time to update the transport. Those who offer free transport offer themselves to lead by example.

[bra4our]

In my country, Only a small number of transportation is owned by the government and its sure aint free but its subsidized so that everyone can afford. And it isnt free because the government have to buy fuel, repair damages and even pay the drivers so it cant be free unless the drivers decide to take no salary.

[Hannu]

Taxes + tickets + ads revenues... All of this to pay executives and press relation managers high salaries?

That is the one thing what piraattipuolue wants to main Capital City area "Suur Helsinki". Im talking about Finland.

[freedomno1]

Taxes + tickets + ads revenues... All of this to pay executives and press relation managers high salaries?

I guess people can't have nice things without paying an exorbitant cost in some places.
Kind of like High Speed rail vs the car based society.

[Basmaty1212]

In my country, Only a small number of transportation is owned by the government and its sure aint free but its subsidized so that everyone can afford. And it isnt free because the government have to buy fuel, repair damages and even pay the drivers so it cant be free unless the drivers decide to take no salary.

But why do that? I think it is easier to give a subsidy to the people whom the government wants to support so they had something to drive in traffic and transport let it be private.

[Madmats]

Everything cost the taxpayers in more ways than one

[xypos]

Taxes + tickets + ads revenues... All of this to pay executives and press relation managers high salaries?

If you want free public transport then that will mean higher taxes.

There is no free lunches in this world.

The government is simply getting funds from everyone, and redistributing them out again, mainly to the poorer people. It is all really about the balance between government subsidisation and taxpayers paying their fair share of taxes.

But if everyone in the world paid their dues, then we will have no problems with having free public transport for everyone.