Can anyone explain to me what the consequence for fare jumping is if they don’t do this enforcement? Can an economist explain what the expected value lost from additional jumping is without enforcement?
There is net societal gain from effectively reducing the price of transit, therefore encouraging its use, therefore reducing traffic congestion.
The transit agency’s books might not look quite as good because of lower fare revenue, but that’s okay because (a) as I explained above, the positive externalities outweigh the “losses,” and (b) government agencies aren’t supposed to make a profit anyway.
In theory I agree with you, but in practice free transit might actually deter use of public transit by those who could afford to drive. Los Angeles has done a good job building new public transit but since the pandemic and the elimination of fares, conditions on the trains, particularly the subways, have deteriorated significantly. Violent crime (assault, murder, rape) has jumped, often involving homeless.
The problem there isn’t free transit, though; the problem there is failing to house the homeless. Although I realize there are people (like you) who bring it up in good faith, I can’t help but think that the people who came up with the idea that charging for transit is good because it keeps homeless off the trains aren’t actually interested in improving either transit or homelessness.
Also, not having to enforce fare evasion frees up transit police to deter violent crime.
I can’t help but think that the people who came up with the idea that charging for transit is good because it keeps homeless off the trains aren’t actually interested in improving either transit or homelessness.
Congratulations your Mk II I-Don’t-Think-You-Assholes-Actually-Care Fire and Forget Torpedo scored a direct hit on your opponents Battleship HMS Austerity hitting the engine room and immediately (rhetorically) obliterating five whole subreddits of libertarians.
There is net societal gain from effectively reducing the price of transit, therefore encouraging its use, therefore reducing traffic congestion.
The transit agency’s books might not look quite as good because of lower fare revenue, but that’s okay because (a) as I explained above, the positive externalities outweigh the “losses,” and (b) government agencies aren’t supposed to make a profit anyway.
In theory I agree with you, but in practice free transit might actually deter use of public transit by those who could afford to drive. Los Angeles has done a good job building new public transit but since the pandemic and the elimination of fares, conditions on the trains, particularly the subways, have deteriorated significantly. Violent crime (assault, murder, rape) has jumped, often involving homeless.
Example: https://news.yahoo.com/l-riders-bail-metro-trains-120007450.html
The problem there isn’t free transit, though; the problem there is failing to house the homeless. Although I realize there are people (like you) who bring it up in good faith, I can’t help but think that the people who came up with the idea that charging for transit is good because it keeps homeless off the trains aren’t actually interested in improving either transit or homelessness.
Also, not having to enforce fare evasion frees up transit police to deter violent crime.
Congratulations your Mk II I-Don’t-Think-You-Assholes-Actually-Care Fire and Forget Torpedo scored a direct hit on your opponents Battleship HMS Austerity hitting the engine room and immediately (rhetorically) obliterating five whole subreddits of libertarians.
Thank you for your service
I roll for initiative against the commenter.
It’s super effective, the commenter is an ADHD type Pokémon!
The commenter will not get anything productive done for the rest of the day and will instead go on a tangent researching meerkats.