• @Hazrod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    721 year ago

    It probably never have been financially viable, and that’s alright, it’s a public service

    • TWeaK
      link
      fedilink
      English
      431 year ago

      I’d argue it absolutely is financially viable to society, and moreso than the status quo. It’s just less financially profitable for certain commercial interests than the status quo.

      The trouble is with government, when you spend money somewhere you generally save it somewhere else, or earn it back elsehwere, and it becomes difficult to associate the spending with the cost savings or profits, such that the spending gets cut. In this case, allowing residents to use public transport for free encourages more people and more business to move to the area, which increases income through taxation. However, after a point someone will look at it and say “Why are we spending so much?” and try to cut it, without acknowledging the subsequent decline after the incentive is removed.

      • @einlander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        Spend more on trains, spend less on road maintenance, have less traffic then spend less on cops patrolling it.

      • @Holyhandgrenade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        You hit the nail on the head. The savings would be too distributed between different parts of the government to arrive at a specific number.

    • @chitak166@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      20
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think you’re conflating ‘financially viable’ with ‘profitable.’

      Something that isn’t ‘financially viable’ doesn’t have the funding to stay in business.

    • PhobosAnomaly
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It is, and again I’m speaking from a UK-centric viewpoint, where the public services are privatised to the point where financial viability does have an impact on it, which is unfortunate as it waters the service down for everybody.

      The article doesn’t make it clear if the transport operation is state owned or privately operated, hopefully it’s the former because I agree with the notion that it should be seen as a service with a net benefit rather than a cost on the accounting books.