Hacker News Reader

Comment by bmmayer1 | Hacker News Reader

If something is "Free" people will hoard it which will reduce its value and increase its cost to everyone. There will be massive shortages of available bus space. With a paid system, people are forced to economize--do I really need to pay to take the bus in winter 5 blocks to buy groceries, or can I walk? But if it's "Free," then people will not economize. The people who need the bus the most, to go to work or hospital or whatever, will have to compete for limited space with people who don't need to be taking the bus. In addition, alternative transit options that could relieve excess demand would be driven out of business (because who can compete with free?). So, the city will be forced to massively increase the cost of the program to meet demand, which would lead to higher taxes anyway, likely offsetting the nominal bus fees that were eliminated.

View on HN

>If something is "Free" people will hoard it which will reduce its value and increase its cost to everyone. There will be massive shortages of available bus space. With a paid system, people are forced to economize--do I really need to pay to take the bus in winter 5 blocks to buy groceries, or can I walk? But if it's "Free," then people will not economize. The people who need the bus the most, to go to work or hospital or whatever, will have to compete for limited space with people who don't need to be taking the bus.

This is a popular theory with certain economists but has not been borne out by experiment. E.g. my country introduced pricing for prescription drugs (previously free) based on exactly that reasoning. Turns out overall usage barely changed (the very poorest stopped taking their prescriptions because they couldn't afford them, but they're a relatively small proportion of society) and administering the payment system cost far more than the money saved in reduced usage or collected in fees.

What's your country? It would be good to know more context here.

> alternative transit options that could relieve excess demand would be driven out of business (because who can compete with free?).

Alternatives don't just compete on price, but also things like convenience. In fact, even in the current system, it's damn hard (impossible?) to find a transportation alternative that's priced lower than a bus. Muni in SF costs $2 a ride (plus free transfers for a few hours), and the only cheaper transport is walking, which can't "go out of business". If I take a taxi, it's not because they're offering $1 fares, it's because it's faster, more direct, and more comfortable, and that advantage will only increase in a free-bus scenario (because presumably buses will be more crowded).

You're making my point. Muni in SF is heavily subsidized, which means there are no transit alternatives available that can compete on price. This makes the only two options for transit very cheap or very expensive, further widening inequality. It's exactly what would be expected by subsidizing transit even more, in fact.

You can't hoard transit. It's a service, not a good.

You can, however, use it. Which is a good thing (a social good!). Even more, transit capital is allocated by use, not by profit. More people using it should (in a non-stupid world) lead to more investment in the infrastructure, which has long term positive benefits for everyone (or, at least, has had them every time in the past in NYC).

Of course you can hoard transit. You can hoard anything with a limited availability. Since Muni buses are not the TARDIS, there's a limited amount of seats to go around. With buses, hoarding means taking the bus way more often than you need to (like in my example, 5 blocks to the grocery store). If something is free, it doesn't change the underlying scarcity, it just increases demand. To your second point, you are careful to qualify that the world needs to be a utopia in order for your system to work. Good luck with that :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com