In many cities I think that this is a good idea, but in New York I worry about how effective this would be because of the outsized number of non-resident, non-tax-paying riders (tourists) who use the system.

Most of the tourists will be paying a nightly hotel tax (which could be adjusted).

I'm completely fine subsidizing tourists' use of the system. Every subway ride is one less rideshare ride; less rideshare rides mean more space for buses, bikes, and people walking. Well worth the tax paid!

That farebox revenue needs to cover operational costs for public infrastructure seems just crazy to me. The fire department doesn't need to make a profit on putting out fires. Public parks don't need to make money by charging an admission fee. It's just something we pay for for public good. I'm pretty sure that public transportation fares are something nobody has ever really thought about; the networks used to be run by private companies, and when they were taken over by the government (which put them out of businesses by building highways) nobody ever thought to get rid of the fares. It's certainly time to think about it.

Tourist tax. Like when you check-in to your hotel they ask you to pay 15 euro.

This already exists, and there are various excise taxes the city levels on things tourists are likely to consume too.

Interestingly there has been a parallel conversation with EVs since money for road maintenance typically comes through gasoline taxes. The idea being that the more you use the more you pay (more driving == more gas, heavier vehicles == lower mpg, etc).

Wouldn't you want tourists to travel as efficiently as possible so they leave lots of money at various places (which the city participates in via sales tax)

I'd want locals to travel as efficiently as possible too- to get to their jobs.

> non-tax-paying riders (tourists)

They're literally carrying money into your local economy, yet you worry about them getting a free ride on the subway along with everyone else?

Tourists pay sales tax, Uber tax hotel tax etc

Yes, we can operate public transit, and pay transit employees (70,000+) on love, hugs, and hope. I'm sure love, hugs, and hope will pay for mortgages, car payments, food, clothes, baby formula, and everything else. Why didn't anyone think of this before?

Do you say this about the road crews who build and maintain public streets and highways? What about the parks department? Should I pay a fee to enter Central Park for the day? Why can't public transit be a government service? Does everything need to be financialized?

We can't operate it on love, hugs, and hope, but we can probably operate it on tax dollars.

So then, it isn't free. You just want someone else to pay for it.

Yeah. I do. Just like I don't expect to pay for my firefighter and I don't expect to pay the actual cost of implanting internet and electricity wiring in the street. I don't expect to pay the salary of the science, math, literature, etc. teachers, not even the school nurse.

In fact when it comes to schools I am the someone else paying for it, because my children aren't in every school at all times. And I'm fine with it.

I frankly find this attitude that social benefits should be pushed back on because not everyone is partaking in the social benefit at the same time to be frankly hypocritical to communicate on the internet, a technology I certainly didn't pay the salaries of the mathematicians and engineers for.

If you interpret caditinpiscinam‘s comment so uncharitably that you think they really think public transit really can cost zero dollars to anyone, you probably have a very frustrating time interacting with others.

They very clearly meant “you don’t have to pay at time of use, it’s paid by tax dollars”, and nearly everyone who reads that comment would interpret it that way. There’s no reason to pick the dumbest, most braindead interpretations of such comments just to make yourself feel smart. You could have just thought “they probably mean taxpayer-paid” and then moved on.

Or everyone, in this case.

I like these kinds of responses.

So you suggest we pay them with what, exactly?

With gold coins? With fruits harvested from the vast fields of money trees?

Or maybe with the collective consensus illusion of funds fabricated by "government" for the use of its citizens?

Money isn't a real thing. Money is not a real thing. There is no such thing as money.

Public services can be paid for with the same thing everything else is paid for: the surrounding social system ("government") saying that it's paid.

People are so deeply invested and locked into maintaining their grasp of the illusion of how things really are that they cannot fathom "the way things are" is completely invented and almost always subject to change if people would just stop maintaining the illusion.

Why and how?

The benefits of subsidizing public transit are obvious: less congested roads, more economic activity, fewer cars polluting the city.

Free public transit is just the same idea taken to the extreme.

> 2. Is it fair in a society with more free basics to require more responsibility from the public?

I was curious what you were thinking with your second question, in the context of free public transit. I wondered if that would that be a wash when comparing transit vs driving, affecting both?

For driving you need to pay taxes, pollution tests, fees, buy insurance, vision tests, and take a written test and a driving test. And continuously update your license and registration. All this is before you can drive. And there are road rules too.

If we have free transport, can we at least require minimum rules for safety?

E.g., no open drug use and harassing others.

Rely on holy spirits for safety is not an answer.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/04/nyregion/new-york-subway-...

It's nice sentiment, but studies have found that making transit free just tends to cause existing transit users to ride transit more frequently for shorter distances (instead of walking) but doesn't tend to encourage new users of transit.

What time period did they do the studies on? Suppose I drive a car because it has some advantages over paid public transit. Now when they make public transit free, I still have my car. I'm not likely to switch within a short time period. When it comes to moving home, getting a new job or a new car then I may become a new user of transit.

It's a valid point, and my problem with most basic income studies. Most of the studies were less than a year. That said, if you're making a decision to sell your car and move to a place near a transit stop, I'd argue that $2.50 or whatever a bus ticket costs isn't going to be a primary factor in your decision.

Consider Japan; everyone uses transit there, and train tickets are generally quite expensive. But, people pay for it because

1) Almost all development is high density near transit stops

2) The trains are fast and frequent

If we want people to use transit, low fares are a definite nice to have, but the real key is we need to stop with horrible car-centric zoning policies and low-density construction.

It makes transit more accessible to people without money.

And it saves a good chunk of money on fare collection, processing, and enforcement.

Thankfully, since the beginning of the pandemic, most mass transit in the U.S. is de-facto payment-optional.

Studies paid for by who? The car lobby

…okay? That seems fine?

The problem then being that it becomes so over used and underfunded it collapses...

When free things are oversubscribed, either a queue or a scrum forms.

Which version of free are you talking about? Don't pay to maintain the equipment and enslave the workers, "point a bunch of guns at wealthy people and ask them to give us nice things?", ad-supported, donation-based (National public radio on wheels/rails)?