In my city public transit fares only cover something like 10% of the cost. Isn’t that fairly typical?
> car owners get to use the infrastructure for free
Every place I’ve lived charges a fuel tax to pay for roads.
Sure, but the budget for transit is also extremely tight, especially compared to car infrastructure.
If only 10% of the costs are covered, that's even more motivation to not charge fees at all, right? Why impose that burden? More people riding public transit means less cars on the road, and less traffic, which is good for everyone.
> charges a fuel tax to pay for roads
For the most part fuel taxes haven't increased to cover the costs of roads (it hasn't increased with inflation at all, federally), and they typically cover highways. Recently, a number of places have been looking at pausing or removing fuel taxes to reduce costs of fuel, due to the Iran war. Most states cover the cost of roads primarily through their general funds.
Quite a few areas have their public transit fully funded by users and some even make a substantial profit. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio)
The US obviously loses out to places like Japan because you have the chicken and egg problem: to make money back you need enough people but for enough people to use public transport you need to invest in it.
> Every place I’ve lived charges a fuel tax to pay for roads.
Which, ironically, often only covers something like 10% of the cost :)
1. https://www.google.com/maps/@33.1890836,-96.7504787,3a,75y,1...
2. https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3698269,-0.1403251,3a,89.7y,...