Here in Germany you will sometimes read about discussions on making public transport free, making it a completely public utility. I’d be more than happy to pay taxes for that.
The OP argument 'everyone uses it' is also not super rational argument either on it's face - we all 'use food' and 'water' but we pay for those - the former in market terms, and the later is socialized on some level but still paid for by individuals on a usage basis.
1) You'd be happy to have people in villages and in the countryside pay for your transportation, who wouldn't? It's not fair or ideal, to have some people's tax money pushed heavily into systems that don't benefit them.
2) When things are 'free' we tend to use them in a way that does not reflect their true cost. Imagine if toilet paper were 'free' for everyone. We'd probably use a lot more of it, unnecessarily so.
The issue with metros is the intense capital costs and de facto monopoly status.
If there were 20 metros too choose from we wouldn't even think of socializing them, you'd just have to 'pay for it' literally like everything else.
The 'Strategic Advantage' in the metro is that it's actually a very efficient way to move people, but those efficiencies may not be realizable without subsidy.
So instead of 'free' - a reasonable solution might be to subsidize expansion while requiring regular Ops to be paid for out of revenue. Some investment in urban facilities is warranted vis-a-vis the countryside due to the big upside i.e. a large bit of social/industrial gain can be had by government investment that could not be had otherwise.
I know this is not the case in the US but here, it is common to have public transport on the country side as well to some degree. Most villages have bus transport. Yes, there is a lot more in the city but it grows with density.
> 2) When things are 'free' we tend to use them in a way that does not reflect their true cost. Imagine if toilet paper were 'free' for everyone. We'd probably use a lot more of it, unnecessarily so.
I do not think there is such thing as an excessive/unnecessary use of public transport when the alternative is to use a car which pollutes the planet. I cannot imagine using the tram in cases where it would be unnecessary, but maybe thats just me.
If it is in the interest of the people to get rid of cars, offering public transport at no cost is not so far fetched, considering the amounts of money we will have to spend to combat carbon in the air and are spending on road systems.
I don‘t think it‘s fair to compare running a bus line on pre-existing roads to maintaining and extending a subway network. People living in big cities already have the advantage of better jobs and much better pay, so I think it‘s fair to expect them to pay for their own transport. Those who choose to live or better said not leave the countryside do it by taking a risk of a harder life yet with maybe more satisfaction in some ways. In this context, I think it’s not justifiable to burden them with supporting the city people when it‘s clear they will get zero benefit out of it.
Yet, it is. Both have the same purpose on different scales and environments.
> People living in big cities already have the advantage of better jobs and much better pay
I would argue that this is the case only for some professions, not all. Outside of white-collar work there is little difference in wages, however that is exactly the demographic which would benefit most from this. May it be the bus or the subway, getting around should be possible to all.
As someone who lives in Germany I can say this is extremely innacurate. ALL jobs pay better in large german cities, to account for the higher cost of living.
> May it be the bus or the subway, getting around should be possible to all.
You are spinning this in the wrong direction. I never argued that some people shouldn’t have access to public transport, just that people who stay away from large cities shouldn’t be forced to pay for the comfort and privileges of those living there. I’m sure small rural communities or even medium sized towns and cities can afford to pay for their own bus lines. Living in a large city has its disadvantages, and one of them is cashing out for the train ticket, out of those fat paychecks.
Born and raised here. Pretty sure people being paid minimum wage is a thing both in the city as well as the country side. I would even argue the amount of low-payed jobs is higher in big cities with lots of "disposable" people to do them.
> just that people who stay away from large cities shouldn’t be forced to pay for the comfort and privileges of those living there.
I can say the same for paying taxes for roadwork. I don't need them, still I am paying for them. Especially in Germany, where there is no road tolls and no private roads. The cost of environmental damage also accounts for that.
> Living in a large city has its disadvantages, and one of them is cashing out for the train ticket, out of those fat paychecks.
If you run the numbers you will realise that owning a care here, including repairs, insurance and gas is quite a bit more expensive than getting a subscription for public transport.
--> demand for transportation is absolutely elastic.
There's no doubt there - it's easily demonstrable.
If right now you increased the cost of a tram ticket so that the Subway could break even and make a 5% profit, then usage would drop off quite noticeably.
The difference between a 'market rate' and 'free' is very substantial, and it's a first-order misapplication of resources.
Making stuff 'free' is almost always a bad idea.
I actually do believe that we should invest more in subways, because the net advantages are quite a lot (at least in North America we don't invest enough), but my point is we have to be careful about the logic of social spending.
Supply and Demand, basic Economics don't just magically go away.
Well, you are wrong about what you "know." The US government subsidizes airports, airfare, and other forms of transit to a significant number of rural destinations in the country. If they did not do so, domestic airlines would not fly to these areas because it would not be profitable.
Why do you think this is not the case in the US? Do you just assume the worst about our country? Why?