• olympicyes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    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

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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.

      • dumpsterlid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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.

        Thank you for your service