this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2024
324 points (99.4% liked)

YUROP

1265 readers
627 users here now

A laid back community for good news, pictures and general discussions among people living in Europe.

Other European communities

Other casual communities:

Language communities

Cities

Countries

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 136 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

ItS Not FreE, YoU StIlL HaVe tO pAy fOR iT sOmeHOw.

Yeah no shit, that's exactly what taxes are for. Providing services to the masses, not giving handouts to the richest.

[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I wonder who do they think that pays for car infrastructure (gas stations, roads, road patches, gas subsidies, etc.)

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I think the criticism is valid, not in favour of cars but in terms of future sustainability. Public transport infrastructure needs investment to keep it growing and improving. There is a risk with a free system that the focus in each budget is the battle around just covering the day to day costs, and the future investment gets put aside constantly as a problem for another day. This is typical behaviour of politicians, and makes the public transport organisations entirely dependent on politicians for their budget.

However that problem applies to a lesser extent with systems that do get revenue from users, it's just that they are less completely reliant on politicians and their yearly budgets. It's ultimately all about political will and a willingness to prioritise transport investment over other public spending.

I do think the scheme is a good thing, I'm just dubious that the political will to sustain it will persist long term. However hopefully this will spread to other European cities and whole countries and so become a normal idea alongside investment for future expansion and upgrades.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

What does the battle between investing in the future v. just keeping the day-to-day running have to do with whether the system is (part-)financed through tickets?

I don't see any connection, maybe even the inverse of what you say: Infrastructure needs long-term planning, and having a stable financial framework rather than fickle ticket sales is great for long-term planning.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Good take. Agree completely.

In more general terms, in a market-based society we tend to equate cost with value. For people who buy expensive watches the high price tag is a bonus. Artists seek sponsorship in the form of a Patreon subscription with supposed "perks" that give the buyer an impression of getting better value.

The risk with "free stuff" will always be that it is perceived as having no value and treated accordingly.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

That's a good take, it's obviously not perfect and could easily be derailed by shitty planning and politics. But it needs to be done and built upon to secure it in the long run.