• rainynight65@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The way toll roads work in a lot of places is that they are built with public funds, then a private operator gets a lease for a set amount of time and gets the lion’s share of the revenue.

    And yes, public transport should be free.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Won’t that encourage overuse of transport, which will actually make it harder to reach emissions targets and similar?

      • rainynight65@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’ll encourage the use of public transport over private vehicles (provided there is a good public transit network present). Public transport has got better efficiencies, and if it can supplant individual transit to a good degree, that’s not a bad thing.

        As far as ‘overuse’ goes: how many people do you know who just travel on public transport for the fun of it? Even in places where people can travel for a flat monthly fee, very few people spend any more time on public transport than they need to. I doubt that free public transport would substantially change that.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Few people just like to hang out on trains, although I do remember the one guy on Reddit who did all his coursework while cruising around Switzerland and then got trapped in a railyard. However, plenty of people will choose a long commute or to visit a more distant destination if it’s cheap enough. Extreme example, but I once knew a person that drove a full 2 hours each way to work. Through a far more densely populated area.

          I don’t and couldn’t really have empirical evidence that people would overuse free public transit, but the I think the theory is strong. Generally, people will travel less if travel is more expensive. If travel is provided at cost instead, they’ll avoid it unless the value to them of the travel exceeds the cost to other people to provide it and bear the side effects.

          Another thought: Flights In some places there’s a government air carrier, and they fulfill the same basic function of getting people from point A to point B. Usually they’re not considered public transport, but then you have cases like the small arctic communities in my country, which are filled with very poor people and can only be accessed by plane. Should we make an exception? That’s where things might get complicated.