I am more and more convinced that public transit shout be fare free for all or at least free to residents. This would natural by extension reduce fare evasion by a huge degree and in a way that no one feels cheated. Cheaters make the people who play by the rules ANGRY. Anger doesn't care about data or numbers. Anger doesn't care about circumstances or motivations either. When anger people tend to lean toward enforcement and punishment but its worth asking if that is the right path.
Finding a way to pay for it would be important but we first have to decide if free access to metro is something we think should be aspiring to... or not.
Looks like passenger revenue is down over 50% since pre-COVID, to $22m annually, and is merely 7% of operating budget. That's about 11% of the money that comes from local funds. We could've already covered fares for a couple years just from the $52m being spent on "turnstiles and enhanced security".
Also giving people free transportation is probably one of the biggest potential enablers of economic upward mobility and possibly the cheapest. The three things essential for people to become economic contributors are food, shelter and mobility to get to a job.
It could be limited to residents so that transients/tourists still get to pay in. Wish it would get some serious discussion. Am genuinely curious what a serious counterargument might be that didn't lean on 'scary-socialism' or 'we're so poor' tropes.
Also giving people free transportation is probably one of the biggest potential enablers of economic upward mobility and possibly the cheapest. The three things essential for people to become economic contributors are food, shelter and mobility to get to a job.
Although that's true, I don't think "economic mobility" is worth pursuing on its own. Remember that poverty is a policy choice by the government; as long as we start recessions any time unemployment gets too low, economic mobility will always just mean workers are taking turns being poor. Rather, I would frame universal mobility as a human right alongside food and shelter, which is worth providing for its own sake. If you approach it as "this will reduce poverty/let everyone win at capitalism" you're just setting the program up to fail.
Would it work to localize the free transit benefit around the Metrolink stops to a) Create popular demand for more residential development near stations and b) Create popular demand for Metrolink expansion in areas that currently don't qualify for the benefit?
Also giving people free transportation is probably one of the biggest potential enablers of economic upward mobility and possibly the cheapest. The three things essential for people to become economic contributors are food, shelter and mobility to get to a job.
Although that's true, I don't think "economic mobility" is worth pursuing on its own. Remember that poverty is a policy choice by the government; as long as we start recessions any time unemployment gets too low, economic mobility will always just mean workers are taking turns being poor. Rather, I would frame universal mobility as a human right alongside food and shelter, which is worth providing for its own sake. If you approach it as "this will reduce poverty/let everyone win at capitalism" you're just setting the program up to fail.
Giving people free access to transportation is pretty much the opposite of capitalism.
Good luck getting food or shelter accepted broadly as a fundamental human right let alone mobility which is not even on the radar.
Making a case that mobility is a blocker to participation in a market economy where by more people will be enabled to contribute in a meaningful way is much easier. Its also true. And while I would favor charging nonresidents for the service which would imply I don't necessarily think its a universal basic human right, the net result is close to the same. The only reason NOT to frame the argument as i presented it is if the data doesn't support my supposition.
The problem of cyclic poverty as a result of a weak regulatory environment driven by the influence of money on politics is a way bigger and tougher thing to fix. This is not that, at least not by itself.
To be clear, I'm not saying free access to transit is bad/capitalist. And it is good for the local economy as a whole. What I am saying is that you should not use economic metrics of individuals like unemployment or poverty reduction for grading transit, because the level of poverty is set by policy according to Capital's need for a reserve army of labor.
That is to say, transit should be free because it improves people's lives, not because we expect it to make good numbers go up.
To be clear, I'm not saying free access to transit is bad/capitalist. And it is good for the local economy as a whole. What I am saying is that you should not use economic metrics of individuals like unemployment or poverty reduction for grading transit, because the level of poverty is set by policy according to Capital's need for a reserve army of labor.
That is to say, transit should be free because it improves people's lives, not because we expect it to make good numbers go up.
If you are saying I shouldn't judge worthiness of a program based on whether the generation of revenue from other sources (sales/income taxes) offsets the investment (forgone revenue from fares to support free transit) such that the investment is net positive from a purely $$ perspective then I can agree to a point. However i would argue if there is no measurable effect in this regard i would have to question whether the program is effective and worth doing because the capital investment could easily go elsewhere.
To be clear, I'm not saying free access to transit is bad/capitalist. And it is good for the local economy as a whole. What I am saying is that you should not use economic metrics of individuals like unemployment or poverty reduction for grading transit, because the level of poverty is set by policy according to Capital's need for a reserve army of labor.
That is to say, transit should be free because it improves people's lives, not because we expect it to make good numbers go up.
If you are saying I shouldn't judge worthiness of a program based on whether the generation of revenue from other sources (sales/income taxes) offsets the investment (forgone revenue from fares to support free transit) such that the investment is net positive from a purely $$ perspective then I can agree to a point. However i would argue if there is no measurable effect in this regard i would have to question whether the program is effective and worth doing because the capital investment could easily go elsewhere.
Well for starters it would've saved us $50mil on turnstiles. Buses are also more cost-effective transportation than cars so any increase in ridership is reducing street and car depreciation; that doesn't have a direct cashflow impact on the district but it justifies a tax increase. That sort of economic impact is real and loosely quantifiable.
^Interesting conversation but I think you guys are talking past one another.
To Enginerd's point (great handle, btw), whatever metrics you want to use, there still needs to be a financial case for public investment in transport v. housing/public health/whatever, because the City/County/State budgets are fixed, i.e., they can't just turn on the printing press (or rather enter digits in the spreadsheet) and create the dough to fund whatever they want like the Feds do. Even if the capital expenses to clear the land, build the lines, buy the cars, etc. were entirely financed by free Biden Bucks and Trump Tokens, there would still need to be ongoing funding coming from somewhere to pay the labor to operate and maintain it. That must come from some combination of (a) increased tax revenues elsewhere, (b) ticket fares, or (c) transfers from other programs. Since we're ruling out fares, and probably don't want to defund anything else to fund transit, then we'll need this thing to generate additional tax revenue from some other source, namely sales or earnings taxes, and maybe in the longer term property taxes as assessments catch up with the now-improved value of the nearby land.
Mark, I share your Marxist analysis re the reserve army of labor and poverty being a mandatory component of capitalist economies that must fluctuate based on the demands of the business cycle. Basing public investment on reducing poverty/unemployment (or what you and I might call fighting capitalist oppression) is a fool's errand. I'd actually argue that well-run public transport and other public amenities can benefit capital/capitalists as a class because they reduce the total cost of social reproduction (socially necessary labor time) and thus the wage demands of labor. Non-psycho capitalists in other parts of the world, e.g., the Scandanavian countries, and in different eras of our own country, understand this, which is why they have robust social provisioning (public transport, health care, education, etc.) undergirding their otherwise capitalist economies. China seems to be moving in this direction as well. Unfortunately America isn't ruled by "wise" capitalists thinking long-term about the wellbeing of their civilization, but instead by the most short-sighted, psychotic variety, happy to eat the ***** seed corn and salt the earth behind it in pursuit of that quarterly KPI.
e.g., the Scandanavian countries, and in different eras of our own country, understand this, which is why they have robust social provisioning (public transport, health care, education, etc.) undergirding their otherwise capitalist economies. China seems to be moving in this direction as well. Unfortunately America isn't ruled by "wise" capitalists thinking long-term about the wellbeing of their civilization, but instead by the most short-sighted, psychotic variety, happy to eat the ***** seed corn and salt the earth behind it in pursuit of that quarterly KPI.
I agree with your summation except for one small correction: Scandinavian countries do not have robust social provisioning because they are run by far-sighted capitalists, they have these things because they were forced by organized workers.
We need a new sales tax to pay for a dome enclosing the entire station so that perfidious urban thugs can't helicopter into the trains and steal mobility from taxpayers.
What we really need is a public/private partnership with Omnicorp to develop a police force that's part human, part robot, and ALL cop, to neutralize any and all transit freeloaders and any other ne'er-do-wells who refuse to comply.
What we really need is a public/private partnership with Omnicorp to develop a police force that's part human, part robot, and ALL cop, to neutralize any and all transit freeloaders and any other ne'er-do-wells who refuse to comply.
"In order to prevent fare evasion, MetroLink trains will no longer open their doors at stations."
What we really need is a public/private partnership with Omnicorp to develop a police force that's part human, part robot, and ALL cop, to neutralize any and all transit freeloaders and any other ne'er-do-wells who refuse to comply.
"In order to prevent fare evasion, MetroLink trains will no longer open their doors at stations."
It was so simple. Staring us in the face the whole time.
Does this mean they were in the other car? How much more presence can we expect or afford?
StlToday - Man is shot on Maplewood MetroLink train, dies at hospital
He said St. Louis County police officers assigned to MetroLink were on another area of the train when the Saturday shooting happened and immediately arrested the suspect when the train reached the station, which he said “no doubt prevented further injuries from occurring on the train or platform.”
Stltoday - Man, 69, charged in fatal MetroLink shooting
“During the argument, the defendant displayed a firearm and shot the victim multiple times,” St. Louis County Police said in a news release, referencing charging documents on file.
“The victim subsequently displayed his own firearm and returned fire. A physical altercation ensued in which the defendant gained possession of both firearms.”
Edit: My mistake, the OT is for additional staffing this summer system wide…though police will still have to monitor and operate the metal detectors. What if you just put police on the trains instead lol.
It’s almost like Metro is self-sabotaging the system. All this security theater that KMOV watching smoothbrains are being told will solve everything…when permanent bullsh*t like turnstiles and metal detectors are shown to be an utter failure…then what?
