Should city buses be subsidized by the government instead of people paying fares?

[ej510]

In my opinion, I believe we would be better off if we provided subsidies instead of fares to reduce traffic on the highways and to reduce our carbon footprint.

[AngryAmish]

1. We would have top pay no matter what

[ej510]

3. It would increase wages.

[Taverner]

2. They already are subsidized

Fares only make up a small part of their revenue

But, yes, I think we should increase subsidization of them, and work towards more public transportation

[ej510]

I think it is important to remove fares and to let anyone ride.

[Taverner]

15. Agreed

[ej510]

16. It eliminates drivers arguing with the public.

[Recursion]

18. There are enough loud, mean teenagers on the bus already (nt)

[slackmaster]

4. Every situation merits an independent, objective analysis

Sometimes it makes sense to subsidize public transportation, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's always the best thing to do.

[arcane1]

5. It would eliminate fare-cheaters, at least n/t

[patrice]

6. There should be no "IF" - any formula determining fares should be weighted to insure that mass

transit survives, whatever is necessary to make tthat so, but that also means public : private proportions of those fares should be maxed out to their fullest potentials as much as possible. Then there should be an evergreen aspect of the fare determining process that reprocesses certain agreed upon economic traits to identify if and when those public : private proportions NEED to adapt in order to keep the primary given of the effort, that there will ALWAYS be public mass transportation , true. An aspect of determining the private funding, i.e. what the fare costs the individual person using mass transportation, should also have a given for FREE (or at least sliding scale) public transportation for those who need it.

[damntexdem]

7. The idea should be carefully studied.

There could be some downsides: e.g., without bringing some revenues, transit costs might be more-strongly targeted when "budget cutting" was on the political agenda.

[gratuitous]

8. I'm in favor of a "token" fare

Clearly, farebox revenues don't fully support public transit. But I think some sort of fare is a good thing, because it gives riders a bit of "ownership" in the ride. When the Portland buses went on an honor system fare scheme, any number of folks jumped on to cause trouble, then jumped off. I think charging a buck or two to riders, with reduced fare passes for "honored" citizens helps to head off some of the mischief.

More buses and trains on more frequent schedules certainly helps to reduce traffic as well. When the perception that "you have to wait forever" for a ride changes, you finally start to get people out of their cars.

[kestrel91316]

9. Mass transit is already subsidized, AFAIK, but not enough to suit me.

[villager]

10. The way the auto industry is subsidized by governments building roads? Yes!

n/t

[ej510]

14. A city like San Francisco would benefit dramatically from free fares.

[Recursion]

19. How so?

The population of people who want to ride the bus for an economically important activity but can't afford the fare is marginal at best and could be handled through transportation subsidies directly to them. And, not to put too fine a point on it, if anybody and everybody could ride buses all the time a lot of people would stop riding.

[libodem]

11. Good idea

I think taxi cabs should get one, too, for Fri and Sat night so everyone gets home safely.

[sinkingfeeling]

12. I would guess that most are subsidized as well as having fares.

[ej510]

13. I want to eliminate fares.

[Recursion]

17. I don't think there's such a thing as an unsubsidized city bus system

Everywhere you pay much less than the marginal cost of your riding.

[robcon]

20. I agree. Buses are a money-loser in my county.

n/t

[Pooka Fey]

21. Free fares for elderly & proven low-income riders, OK. But not for everyone. nt