politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Asking the same question as the last time this article was posted:
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?
When I lived in NYC, I began getting monthly passes through work. I did this for 3 years, paying $100/mo or $1,200 a year. I was getting paid pennies to make a big company bigger, so I stopped paying and started jumping. I jumped for around 2 years on my commute and for any other transit. I had a pay per ride card if I was on a date or if I needed the bus transfer. I figured out which cars to hide in to avoid paying for LIRR or the Metro North tickets (hint: at rush hour, no one can walk through the cars).
I was caught one time, I jumped the turnstiles into the 6 train at 68th/Hunter College. Right in front of 3 cops looking for jumpers (of course they were trying to ticket poor college kids). Got a ticket for $85. Still less than my monthly card would have cost. I was gonna argue it with some lame ass excuse but ended up paying it just so I wouldn’t have to take a day off work. I still saved over $2300 by jumping.
So, not to say that this program is effective, but how many people were in a similar circumstance as me but decided not to jump because of deterrence policing?
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.
This hits a little too close to home!