OK, this may have been true in the ‘80s, but once the cocaine haze wore off and all the stockbrokers’ 911s were wrapped around trees, the stigma of being on mass transit has gone away.

Yep. We should make all forms of transportation as cheap as possible if we want an equitable outcome. That’s why I’m for free-to-user transit and roads, funded via a progressive taxation system.

This is straight-up false. Broken windows has been conclusively disproven.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. COTD/W/M/Y.

That’s just not true. There are so many examples of free-to-user stuff out there that’s valued. Parks. Public schools. Hugs. Sunrises.

This is a myth that needs busting. We value lots of stuff that’s “free” - public schools, for starters. Sunrises... who paid for those?

That’s an insane amount of money to pay for equipment to keep people out of transit :-)

That is pretty impressive by transit system standards. I think Caltrain in the San Francisco Bay Area might still be higher, but that’s because it’s a single commuter line (no loss-leading services) and it was actually required by law to meet a certain level of farebox recovery, at least for a while.

If it’s a star-shaped crack, buy a kit like this one: https://www.permatex.com/products/specialized-maintenance-repair/windshield-repair/permatex-windshield-repair-kit/?locale=en_us

I guess we’re falling back into the realm of the anecdotal, so maybe best to leave it alone... but I’ll just note what you mentioned about POPS - the difference isn’t between they're free or not, it’s whether the space places resources to support public safety.

OK, so no cameras :-)

Thank you for the equally detailed and considered response. I understand that you believe that I am wrong, but appreciate that we both know that the other person is making a considered argument rather than an overly-simplified knee-jerk reaction.

By “operators,” I mean bus drivers, since this article started with a discussion of free bus services. Surprised you haven’t heard that term before, since it’s a standard descriptor in most transit agencies for these workers.

Yeah, I don’t mean the “global elite.” Just the overpaid techies. In cities where the median cost of a house is measured in the millions of dollars, there’s money to be captured for as great a cause as free transit.

Exactly. And it’s not for every trip. There are plenty of trips - especially off-peak trips - for which a car is still going to make way more sense. You’re not going to take a bus to the beach with your surfboard, unless you really hate yourself and your fellow riders.

There was a company called Chariot which did exactly that (except without the electric part). Turns out, they were just copying San Francisco Muni routes anyway, because those routes are going along the paths where people want to travel.

Do you have any evidence to support that contention? As mentioned above, in the cities I’ve lived in (not just SF), operators are specifically told not to challenge fare evaders because they aren’t trained for it, and because they don’t want to escalate the situation into a real safety concern.

While that is a beautiful metaphor, I just don’t think that it’s supported by data.

I don’t understand the hate for cable techs. All of the problems that I have ever had with a cable company have been due to the company’s draconian policies, bad phone support, and over scheduling of the techs.

I'd go with increasing taxes on large businesses operating downtown, since they are the ones which cause most congestion by forcing workers to be in the same place at the same time. I'd also be happy with a straight progressive income tax. These superstar cities have unimaginable wealth in them, and the wealthy aren't…